text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
You have to figure that when the star's name is listed wrong in the opening credits, you are not in for a good time (the credit reads "Cuba Gooding, J.R."). Some nice car chase, shoot 'em up, blow 'em up action if ALL you want is action, because the relationship to what plot exists is tenuous at best, and completely unbelievable. The motivations of the characters, especially that of Gooding's at the end, are worse then unbelievable, they are irrational when they are not hopelessly muddled. All I can think is that Andy Cheng must be a really nice guy to get this many good actors into this foul a project (he can't have something on all of them, can he?). | 0neg
|
This ranks as one of the worst movies I've seen in years. Besides Cuba and Angie, the acting is actually embarrassing. Wasn't Archer once a decent actress? What happened to her? The action is decent but completely implausible. The make up is so bad it's worth mentioning. I mean, who ever even thinks about the makeup in a contemporary feature film. Someone should tell the make up artist, and the DOP that you're not supposed to actually see it. The ending is a massive disappointment - along the lines of "and then they realized it was all a dream"<br /><br />Don't waste your time or your money. You're better off just staring into space for 2 hours. | 0neg
|
This movie was like a bad indie with A-list talent. The plot was silly, all the way to the end. It reminded me very much of something churned out for the home video market in the 1980's. I would have given it a one, but there were brief moments when you could see the actors really really straining to make this worthwhile. I think the worst thing was the underwater scene's held off of the dock. The underwater lighting seemed to come from no were, and whenever someone we were supposed to care about was close to running out of air, this air tank would kind of appear. I would avoid this, unless there is nothing else on the shelf. Good Day. | 0neg
|
It had all the clichés of movies of this type and no substance. The plot went nowhere and at the end of the movie I felt like a sucker for watching it. The production was good; however, the script and acting were B-movie quality. The casting was poor because there were good actors mixed in with crumby actors. The good actors didn't hold their own nor did they lift up the others. <br /><br />This movie is not worthy of more words, but I will say more to meet the minimum requirement of ten lines. James Wood and Cuba Gooding, Jr. play caricatures of themselves in other movies. <br /><br />If you are looking for mindless entertainment, I still wouldn't recommend this movie. | 0neg
|
MST 3000 should do this movie. It is the worst acted movie I have ever seen. First of all, you find out that the shooter has no bank account and no history since leaving the army in 1993 and pays his rent in cash. There is no way in hell that a person like that would ever be allowed to be that close to a president not to mention a high profile job. Also, the head of security for the POTHUS would not be so emotional that he would start drinking into a haze if the president was shot. This movie sucked. I cannot express the extremite that this movie was. Every single actor was terrible. Even the chick at the trailer park. I crap on this garbage. What a waste of time. | 0neg
|
Flat characters that you do not and never will care about. Cringe-inducing dialogue at places. No twists (they think they have one, but if you didn't figure it out after about 40mins you're not too bright). Lots of well know actors in roles and performances that, fortunately for everyone involved, will be forgotten as soon as the end credits roll.<br /><br />I don't mind 'slow' movies, but they've got to be going _somewhere_. This one doesn't.<br /><br />The plot wasn't what made this a direct-to-DVD movie, that's just a rather convenient excuse to try and drum up some fake controversy.<br /><br />The as-of-writing 37(!) ten (10) ratings must be from people involved with the production. | 0neg
|
An ensemble of uninteresting and unlikeable characters twist and turn their way through a flimsy plot that might be interesting, if only you could bring yourself to care. This "twisting and turning" I speak of refers not to the story (which contains all the suspense of a recipe for tuna casserole) but to the director's inability to keep the characters' faces even remotely centered in the frame. On the other hand, Angie Harmon has very nice nostrils and left ear.<br /><br />The only real surprise in the movie is the big names they convinced to do it. When you consider this movie was never released in theaters despite having an all-star cast, you might be inclined to think something stinks.<br /><br />And indeed, it does. | 0neg
|
This Movie had some great actors in it! Unfortunately they had forgotten how to act. I was hoping the movie would get better as it went along but the acting was so robotic it was doomed from the very start. It actually appeared that maybe the actors were reading from a script the whole time. Maybe it was the Musical score or the Director himself, but one thing is for sure the Make-up artist needs to get another job ! The Facial Powder was so thick you could see it caked on the actors faces ! Would not recommend this movie to anyone, no wonder it never hit the Theaters. Cuba Gooding Jr. / James Woods shame on you guys for not giving it your all. The Plot was great just needed a whole lot more. | 0neg
|
Don't get fooled with all the big names like Burt Reynolds,James Woods and Anne Archer. They are just glorified extra's. Their scenes were probably filmed in one day or so. Whatever their motives for being in this movie, if you have an actor like James Woods you better make good use of him. To me this is a sign of bad direction through and through. The plot itself wasn't that bad. And the acting from most of the actors was above average. Cuba Gooding Jr. however was terrible. He was so unbelievable that I almost laughed at his dramatic scenes. And since this was meant as a serious movie that can't be a good thing. The action scenes were not bad,but they lacked that special punch to make it more exciting. Again better direction was needed. Also the pacing was wrong for a movie like this. It took the main character almost half an hour to get in action. For an action thriller of only 90 minutes that is far too slow. The only redeeming factor is Angie Harmon. She does her best to make it all work. Too bad the director left her hanging. Yes,this movie could have been much better with a great director. Andy Cheng is far too inexperienced as a director to pull it off. And for an action/stunt coordinator of his caliber you'd expect at least more exciting action scenes. Don't waste your time with this one. Avoid! | 0neg
|
I am a big 1930's movie fan and will watch most anything that I see on Turner Classic Movies thats new for me. So I gave this a shot, after all it's the great Harold Lloyd who rivaled Chaplin as a great silent film comedian. I have watched much less of Lloyd's silent films then of Chaplins but I have to say I'm a much bigger Chaplin fan. Anyway this film fell so flat for me that I didn't finish it. I can understand why his sound career was so limited, he didn't get very good material to work with. After you've seen Chaplin, Abbott and Costello, The Three Stooges, Martin and Lewis, The Marx Brothers, and Laurel and Hardy do boxing spoofs (or violence in general), this one is very forgettable. I was also interested in watching Adolphe Menjou as I really enjoyed him in Paths Of Glory but his role here also did nothing special for me. Maybe they should have gotten into the boxing sooner because at least half the film (at least it seemed that way) is before he gets in a ring. I can tell there are a lot of Lloyd fans here and this wont be a popular review but I must rate this as compared to what else was out there at the time, 4 out of 10. Don't watch this with anyone your trying to get to like old movies as they may not watch another one with you again, very flat. For an alternative to anyone who really liked this or is looking for more little known comedies in general I recommend "Kelly The Second" made a few years earlier, another nobody becomes a boxer comedy with Patsy Kelly and in a supporting role Charles Chase. These have both been shown on the Turner Classic Movies channel. | 0neg
|
About three minutes into this thing I started fast-forwarding, pausing only during the nudity (why is it that bad movies always include such good looking women?). In ten minutes I was done, and wishing I could get my money back from the rental store. The people who write these movies should be sanctioned by the MPAA. Come on writers - the bad guys ALWAYS get into the car with the bomb activated by the good guy's remote control! That's the way its been done since the days of the Ottoman Empire! Also, to add insult to injury, the "twist" at the end was so formulaic, that it could have come from any action movie written in the past 25 years. Burt Reynolds was fine, but he should concentrate on real movies.<br /><br />This movie is just a waste of time - Run away! Run away! | 0neg
|
A very tired looking Burt Reynolds plays a mercenary battling his former employers for some gizmo these non-heroes plan to sell to "the Iranians." Low-rent video nonsense by the producers of "Silk Stalkings" offers some decent action footage and a lot of ineptly staged "drama"...a lack of logic and truly dreadful dialogue are the defining aspects, although the final twists and allegiance shifts could've been a nifty end to a better movie. Burt still has presence, although it also means you notice more when he mouths insultingly half-baked "one-liners". | 0neg
|
The movie was not a waste except for some boring scenes in between.But the women cast gave a pretty good show than the males who were laughable. <br /><br />But Krista Allen really rocked in the movie .Her voice was so seducing and sexy.The scenes in the bed involving Krista should have shortened but she made it so watchable and sexier than any one could do.Krista really is one of the best in such roles.She also enacted quiet well as the baddie in the last 5 minutes,which is the interesting part of the movie.<br /><br />Burt Reynolds was not that good and this was not his best as an action star.He could have chosen a better script than this.Ireally think he did for money. | 0neg
|
I am definitely a Burt Reynolds fan, but sorry, this one really stinks. Most of the dialogue is laughable and the only interesting plot twist is in the last five minutes of the movie. I can't believe he even made this one. Is he actually that hard up for money? | 0neg
|
It's "The F.B.I." starring Reed Hadley, with an all-star guest cast! The film begins with an accidental (convenient?) kidnapping, which leads to one thing, and another - which doesn't really indicate the main story, which is a "Big House, U.S.A." prison break story. The story is very improbable, to say the least. It's like a TV show, only more "violent" (for the times).<br /><br />BUT - the cast is a trip! Picture this: Ralph Meeker is sent to prison; his cell-mates are the following criminals: Broderick Crawford, Lon Chaney Jr., Charles Bronson (reading a "Muscle" magazine!), and William Talman (reading a "Detective" magazine!). Honest! You should know that, an early scene reveals what happens to the "missing" boy, answering the ending "voiceover." If you don't want to have that hanging, don't miss the opening scenes between the "Iceman" and the boy (Peter Votrian doing well as a runaway asthmatic). <br /><br />*** Big House, U.S.A. (1955) Howard W. Koch ~ Broderick Crawford, Ralph Meeker, Reed Hadley | 0neg
|
I pity people calling kamal hassan 'ulaganaayakan' maybe for them ulagam is tollywood ! comeon guys..this movie is a thriller without thrill..<br /><br />come out of your ulagam and just watch some high class thrillers like The Usual Suspects or even The Silence of the Lambs.<br /><br />technically good but style over substance kamal doesn't look like a police officer, there is no thrill whatsoever dragging and boring till end you might be saving 3 valuable hrs of your life if u skip watching this movie.<br /><br />kamal at his best is the best in tollywood | 0neg
|
Filmatography: Excellent, nice camera angles (I don't remember seeing a movie of late, with good close-ups, until this one). Could have avoided gruesome scenes with a soft camera. NY is pictured good.I liked the upside down angles, in particular (a different touch).<br /><br />Music: Not impressive. Songs don't stick around in your mind even after watching the movie. May be, I expected same quality like "Anniyan". A disappointment. <br /><br />Actors: Kamal needs to slowly pull away from hard-core action sequences. His age and belly really show up. Also, he should avoid close romantic sequences going forward. It was a very awkward to see a mature/aged star still trying to play like a 20+ heroes scenes. Love can be expressed at any age; as we get older, you still can express love nicely from a distance (without touching a woman too much. For example, the love expressed by Rajinikanth in "chandrmukhi").<br /><br />Jyotika just appears for the namesake in the movie. Not sure why she accepted this. Well, that is not my problem, I guess.<br /><br />Others just have a small presence.<br /><br />Direction: I expected Gautham to excel (or measure-up) to his other movie "Kakka Kakka". He disappointmented me. It took a long time to release the movie due to various issues. He slips in few scenes. Even abvious things got slipped from a famous director.<br /><br />Overall: Just a okay movie. Too much graphics. DEFINITELY not for kids (and adults who expect some kind of "Entertainment").<br /><br />Thx | 0neg
|
On the way back from IMC6 (San Jose, California), all five (mind you, three of us hardcore Kamal fans) of us had reached a unanimous verdict; VV was solid crap and thanks to the movie we were going to have a pretty screwed up Monday. Not to mention, we swore to stay off the theatres for the next year.<br /><br />I won't blame Kamal here because he sort of dropped a hint in a recent interview with cartoonist Madan (on Vijay TV). He said something like, "Tamizh Cinema'la Photography, Editing'la namba munnera'na maadri Screenplay, Direction, Acting'la innum namba munnera'la" (Tamil Cinema has grown in terms of Photography and Editing, but we have hardly improved, when it comes to Screenplay, Direction and Acting"). While you're watching VV, those words ring very true.<br /><br />Now, here are the 10 Reasons to hate this movie:<br /><br />1. Harris Jeyaraj<br /><br />2. Harris Jeyaraj<br /><br />3. Harris Jeyaraj I'm barely holding myself from using expletives here, but fact is HJ has mastered the fine knack of screwing up every recent movie of his (remember 'Anniyan', 'Ghajini') with the jarring cacophony, he bills as background music. The next time I have an eardrum transplant, he's paying for it. <br /><br />4. Songs Neither do the songs help move the movie's narration spatially/temporally nor do they make you sit up and take notice. The film feels like it's made of four VERY long songs with a few scenes thrown in between them.<br /><br />5. A Short gone too far. VV at best is fit to be a short story, not a 2 hour plus "thriller". To use a cliché here, like the Energizer bunny it goes on and on and on; only in this case you don't want it to. The later part of a movie feels like a big drag.<br /><br />6. Kamal-Jothika pairing Two ice cubes rubbed together could've produced more sparks than this lead pairing. There's no reason you would root for them to make it together. In fact every time they get together in the second half of the movie, they make a good irritant to the narration. Hate to say this, but Kamalini Mukerjhee's 10 minute romancing does more than what Kamal and Jothika achieve in this movie plus 'Thenali'.<br /><br />7. Kamal Haasan's accent Kamal has this pretentious accent that nobody speaks either in India or in the US; and it isn't new either. He's been doing it since 'Thoongadae Thambi Thoongadae'. It's simply gets on the nerve. Imagine what havoc it can cause when his flair for using this strange accent meets shooting on location in the US. He doesn't leave it at the Immigration either, he offers doses of advice to his men (bewildered TN Cops from Keeranor, Sathoor and beyond) in chaste Kamanglish ("Wha we hav here is plain bad police wok"), of course with nauseating effect.<br /><br />8. Logic There are a few directors whom you expect to stand up to a certain scale. Gautam fails us badly with some crappy performance in the Department of common sense. Which D.C.P in his senses would meet his love interest on the streets to discuss such matters as committing himself and life after! The scene inside the theatre was so bad, towards the climax; we could hear people behind us loudly challenge the Hero's IQ. "Is he stupid, can't he just use his Siren or Lights?" (On a busy Madras road, Kamal-the-cop-on-a-police-Jeep chases a guy on a bike just like any ordinary dude!). "Can't he just use his gun?" ("The guy on a bike" starts on foot and we have a fully geared Kamal in hot pursuit for a considerable amount of time). I'm not voting in favour of the later, but I'm just trying to explain the mood inside.<br /><br />9. Gore & Violence If I wanted to watch women being raped, their throats getting slashed, more women getting raped and thrown into the bushes with excruciating authenticity, I would sit at home and rather watch a "Police Report" or "Kuttram". The use of excessive violence should go in a way to extend the story, not overwhelm it! Somewhere down the line Gautum seems confused about what the extensions (rapes, murders) are and what the mainstay (story) is!<br /><br />10. Even a double shot Espresso couldn't get the pain out of the head. | 0neg
|
I had a lot of hopes for this movie and so watched it with a lot of expectations; basically because of Kamal Hassan. He is an amazing actor who has marked his foot steps in the sands of time forever. But this movie proved to be one of the worst movies i have ever seen. After watching this the movie the brutality and violence in tenebra and clockwork orange looks far better. <br /><br />The Protagonist, Raghavan, is a very daring police officer. Who is assigned to a investigate brutal serial murders. Raghavan efficiently finds the connecting thread in this case and is close to solve the murders and put the psycho killers, two psychologically disturbed but brilliant medical students, behind bars but they escape and again get into a killing spree. Finally Raghavan kills them both after sparing many innocent lives.<br /><br />THese two psycho-killers are the ones who are going to keep the audiences from going to the theaters. The murders and sexual harassments and rapes are shown very explicitly, which the movie could have survived without. <br /><br />To even imagine that teenagers and kids are going to be watching this movie in the theater and kind of picture it is bound to paint in their minds are certainly not pretty. The director, Gautham, should realize that he also has some obligation to the society and his audience.Certainly i am never going to the movies looking like Gautham's name on the production list. | 0neg
|
What can I say. A Kamal Hassan movie being horrible. He acts very well, but it is a horrible story, along with horrible direction. In my kind opinion, the director Gautham Menon must give up directing. There is a lot of tragedy throughout the movie. Apart from that, one can just not believe how true were those horrendous crimes. There was no practicality in the movie. Gautham is just running out of stories. But both Kamal Hassan and Jyothika act really well. The villains look too ugly, though their performance was not bad. I do not think this is a Sunday afternoon movie like Padayappa which you can see with the family. You will not get sleep seeing this movie!! However, Harris Jayaraj again did a great job, and that is why I have given this movie 4 out of 10. His song 'Partha Modail Nallae' is soulful and soothing. Apart from that, great cinematography. On the whole, this is just a bad, bad movie. Kamal Hassan, I think, should have rejected this movie. | 0neg
|
This is quite possibly the most retarded 80's slasher ever realized, but how can you be harsh on a film that features non-stop images of dozens of gorgeous ladies with exhilarating bodies doing aerobic exercises, taking showers and wandering about in tight gym outfits? Prior to being a horror film, "Aerobicide" is a 90 minutes promo video to encourage the use of steroids, silicons and other body-stimulating fitness products. If you'd leave out all the footage of hunky boys lifting weights and yummy girls wiggling their butts and racks to insufferable 80's tunes, there probably only have about 15 minutes of story left. Plenty of time to improvise a plot about a sadist killer slaughtering young health-freaks with a big safety pin (yeah
). The film opens with an unintentionally hilarious scene of a girl getting fried between an electric sun-bathing device. Several years later people turn up dead in the same spa. You don't really need to be an experienced horror fanatic or a rocket scientist to figure out there's a link between the murders and the burning incident, now do you? Investigating the case are a seemingly braindead police officer (and Charles Napier look-alike!) and a beefcake private detective who gets lucky with the bustiest 80's beauty I've ever seen! Looking through the credits, her name's Dianne Copeland apparently, and she didn't do anything else apart from this turkey and an imbecile Troma-movie called "Surf Nazis Must Die". What a wasted opportunity! She may not have been a great actress, but she sure had two other BIG advantages that would help her move upwards in show business. The amount of gore and the quality of the make-up effects are nothing special, neither. We're treated to a couple of bizarre stabbings with a pin and some barbecued human flesh. The plot twists near the end are ridiculous and predictable, but by that time nobody is taking the film seriously anymore, anyway. "Aerobicide" (a.k.a. "Killer Workout") is recommended in case you want to switch of all your brain functions off for one night, but nevertheless feel like watching a film! It actually would make a terrific double-feature with "Death Spa". Both films have a lot of sexy and scarcely dressed babes
and both films are pretty dumb. | 0neg
|
Big hair, big boobs, bad music and a giant safety pin.......these are the words to best describe this terrible movie. I love cheesy horror movies and i've seen hundreds..but this had got to be on of the worst ever made. The plot is paper thin and ridiculous, the acting is an abomination, the script is completely laughable(the best is the end showdown with the cop and how he worked out who the killer is-it's just so damn terribly written), the clothes are sickening and funny in equal measures, the hair is big, lots of boobs bounce, men wear those cut tee-shirts that show off their stomachs(sickening that men actually wore them!!) and the music is just synthesiser trash that plays over and over again...in almost every scene there is trashy music, boobs and paramedics taking away bodies....and the gym still doesn't close for bereavement!! All joking aside this is a truly bad film whose only charm is to look back on the disaster that was the 80's and have a good old laugh at how bad everything was back then. | 0neg
|
One two three four five six seven eight and back, haha. This is a must see, first of all to see the work out. There are a lot of work out shown, see those close ups, man you will enjoy it. A few years ago a video clip was surely based on this movie. It's a slasher but without suspense. The ending is funny too, and the clothes she's wearing in the wood confronting the copper, Jesus, looks like a clown. The killings are mostly done off screen, the blood flows but never too gory. There are a lot of fight scene's too, and hey, no one got hurt. And what about the weapon to kill, never seen a big one like that, won't spoil it, you must see it. And being a slasher there's a lot of T&A too. To guess who's the killer you will be trapped a few times and that's the best part, but what about the story of the copper in the woods, huh! But still due his cheesiness this one is still one that many would like to have. I'm glad that I have my copy, one of those slasher failures. But man, those clothes and not to mention the hairstyles! If you are in your 40's then this is one is back to memory lane. | 0neg
|
You know Jason, you know Freddy, and you know Leatherface. Now, get ready for: The Safety Pin Killer! That's right, in Killer Workout, a dumb slasher movie if I've ever seen one, the unseen murderer dispatches his (or her?) victims with an oversized, novelty safety pin. It is an odd choice to be sure, the kind of thing that deserves an explanation. Naturally, the movie never even attempts to clarify where the killer acquired such a thing.<br /><br />As the title suggests, an aerobics gym is under siege by a mad killer and everyone is a suspect. In fact, the movie gives so few clues as to the identity of the killer, just about everyone in the movie is a potential murderer until they get killed. And since just about everyone but the killer winds up dead, it's really just process of elimination. <br /><br />Oddly, while the entire name cast is killed off, the aerobics classes continue in earnest. In fact, nothing is capable of stopping the dancing. While three men are murdered in the next room, the workout goes on. Death isn't even a factor; one character dies, but is still seen prominently in the later workout sessions. Director David Prior knew what he was doing when named the movie Killer Workout and not Logical Workout.<br /><br />Cop chases, explosive tanning beds, and hundreds of shots of women's exposed flesh are thrown in for good measure. Much like the woman caught in the tanning bed, I felt very uncomfortable by the end of Killer Workout. Finally, thankfully, THE END flashed on the screen. What happened next? You got it, shots of the women working out. Not even the end of the movie can stop them!<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
Want to know the secret to making a slasher film set at a fitness center work? Just pad the film out with lovely ladies in super tight workout outfits and have them bump and grind the floor like they are at a gentleman's club. That's what the makers of this horrid slasher film did and that little gimmick kept me watching till the bitter end. This is the worst slasher film I have ever seen, but every time I was ready to switch the channel, they'd add another scene with the workout girls and I'd stay put. As a slasher film, Killer Workout fails in every category I can think of. As a showcase for beautiful girls working out, it is a success. Strong recommendation to avoid, unless the thought of half the film being a big T&A show appeals to you. | 0neg
|
This movie is without a doubt the worst horror movie I've ever seen. And that's saying a lot, considering I've seen such stinkers like Demon of Paradise, Lovers' Lane, and Bloody Murder (which is a close second). However, I love bad horror movies, and as you can tell from my username, this one really sticks out. At times there's nothing more entertaining than a poorly made slasher flick. As for this film, the opening scene in which a woman gets fried in a tanning booth appears to have no bearing on the film whatsoever, especially since the movie fails to tell you that the event happened 2 years prior to the rest of the film. The acting is nonexistent, and most of the camera shot are of women's areas shrink wrapped in spandex. The policeman was the most stone-faced, monotone actor I've ever seen. The best/worst part of this movie, however, has to be the murder weapon. A giant safety pin?! What were they thinking? Who's the killer? A disgruntled "Huggies" employee? I'd have to give this movie an overall zero, but darned if I didn't have a blast watching it | 0neg
|
Johnny Weissmuller's final film as 'King of the Jungle', after 16 years in the role, TARZAN AND THE MERMAIDS, is bound to disappoint all but the most ardent of his fans. At 44, the ex-Olympian, one of Hollywood's most active 'party animals', was long past the slim athleticism of his youth, and looked tired (although he was in marginally better condition than in his previous entry, TARZAN AND THE HUNTRESS).<br /><br />Not only had Weissmuller gotten too old for his role; Johnny Sheffield, the quintessential 'Boy', had grown to manhood (he was a strapping 17-year old), so he was written out of the script, under the pretext of being 'away at school'. Brenda Joyce, at 35, was appearing in her fourth of five films as 'Jane' (she would provide the transition when Lex Barker became the new Tarzan, in 1949's TARZAN'S MAGIC FOUNTAIN) and was still as wholesomely sexy as ever.<br /><br />Produced by Sol Lesser, at RKO, on a minuscule budget, the cast and crew took advantage of cheaper labor by filming in Mexico. While the location gave a decidedly Hispanic air to what was supposedly darkest Africa, veteran director Robert Florey utilized the country extensively, incorporating cliff diving and an Aztec temple into the story.<br /><br />When a young island girl (Tyrone Power's future bride, Linda Christian) is rescued in a jungle river by Tarzan, he learns that a local high priest (George Zucco, one of filmdom's most enduring villains) had virtually enslaved the local population, threatening retribution from a living 'God' if they don't do his bidding. The girl had been chosen to become the 'God's' bride, so she fled. Faster than you can say 'Is this a dumb plot or WHAT?', the girl is kidnapped by the priest's henchmen and returned to the island, and Tarzan, followed by Jane, colorful Spanish character 'Benjy' (charmingly played by John Laurenz, who sings several tunes), and a government commissioner are off to take on the Deity and his priest (poor Cheeta is left behind). After a series of discoveries (the 'God' is simply a con man in an Aztec mask, working with the priest in milking the island's rich pearl beds), a bit of brawling action, and comic relief and songs by Benjy, everything reaches the expected happy conclusion.<br /><br />Remarkably, TARZAN AND THE MERMAIDS features a musical score by the brilliant film composer, Dimitri Tiomkin, and is far better than what you'd expect from this 'B' movie! <br /><br />While the film would provide a less-than-auspicious end to Weissmuller's time in Tarzan's loincloth (he would immediately go on to play Jungle Jim, a more eloquent variation of the Ape Man, in khakis), the talent involved lifted the overall product at least a little above the total mess it could have been.<br /><br />Tarzan was about to get a make over, and become much sexier... | 0neg
|
The finale of the Weissmuller Tarzan movies is a rather weak one. There are a few things that derail this film.<br /><br />First, Tarzan spends much of the film wearing floppy sandals. In my opinion, any footwear on Tarzan, whether it be sandals or boots as sometimes portrayed, takes away from the character, which is supposed to be anti-civilization and pro-jungle.<br /><br />Second, the character of Benji, as mentioned in a previous post, totally derails the movie as the comic foil. To me, his character is unnecessary to the film's plot.<br /><br />Also, while Weissmuller still cuts a commanding figure as Tarzan, it's apparent that he was not in his best shape. Although in his later Jungle Jim movies, his physique had improved somewhat from this film.<br /><br />The octopus battle is a terrific idea, but I think it should have been done in an earlier Weissmuller film when he was at his physical peak. Likewise, the battle, which takes only 30 seconds tops, would be much more thrilling if it was drawn out to 90 seconds to 2 minutes like the classic giant crocodile battle in Tarzan and His Mate.<br /><br />And while Brenda Joyce as Jane and Linda Christian as Mara are overwhelmingly pleasing to the eye, it doesn't manage to salvage this last Weissmuller film - a disappointing ending to a great character run. | 0neg
|
The last Tarzan film starring Johnny Weissmuller (looking surprisingly aged a year after "Tarzan and the Huntress") is bad, in spite of all the trivia one can add to make it look better. It is obvious that RKO tried to make a great farewell for Weissmuller, shooting in beautiful scenery in México, with a top star of that country (Andrea Palma) and multiple award-winning cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa, and bringing in prestigious composer Dimitri Tiomkin to do the score. Although it may have cost less for filming abroad, it looks more expensive than any other RKO film in the series, taking advantage of Acapulco beaches and real pyramids as Aquatania, and with impressive décors for all the scenes related to the temple of god Balu (especially the exterior, built on steep rocks.) Kurt Neumann should have stayed as director, instead of Robert Florey, who gives it a very slow pace. Neumann had done a fine work with "Tarzan and the Amazons", "Tarzan and the Leopard Woman" and "Tarzan and the Huntress", and finished his career directing the classic "The Fly" the year before his death; while Florey became a television director, after a career of few remarkable films. If Weissmuller looks tired, the chimp playing Cheeta is not as good as the others, but the worst character is Benji, an obnoxious mailman who sings horrendous songs (that have a Caribbean air, in a location supposed to be Africa and shot in México!) Boring and decidedly of dubious taste, it was a sad farewell to Weissmuller's Tarzan. | 0neg
|
Last of the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films and a good thing too, as this is easily the worst of the 12 films he made over a period of 16 years. No mermaids are featured here either as a beautiful island woman tries to escape the clutches of her people, who worship a god and try to force her to be its bride. She finds Tarzan and Jane, who try to protect her. George Zucco is present as a potentially villainous High Priest but isn't used to his full advantage. Also on hand and worthy of mention is a hugely annoying guitar player/singer who goes into song every so often. Even the "great" Robert Florey can't aid this one.<br /><br />*1/2 (of four) | 0neg
|
I'd never seen a Tarzan movie before so when I saw it on the tele I thought I'd give it a shot. Unfortunately I have to say I was disappointed. Tarzan was over 40 years old and somewhat overweight. Not how I'd imagined Tarzan would look. And, unless I missed it while making myself a cup of tea, Tarzan never gave his traditional warbling yell. Also missing was Tarzan swinging through the trees - leaping from vine to vine.<br /><br />Oh well, so much for expectations. Anyway, Jane was there - The monkey Cheeta was there. There was some guy with a guitar there. There were villains and good guys and a romance... all very harmless and predictable. Nothing bad, you understand, but equally nothing good.<br /><br />Probably not the best movie to introduce Tarzan: 4/10 | 0neg
|
Well, here we have yet another role reversal movie. There were many worth watching, despite the tired plot of gender reversal. However, this one is not. In previous reviews, I think I've made my point about the general decline of enjoyment for Haim movies that followed the late 80s. This is one of them.<br /><br />'Just One of the Girls' is about a high school kid (Corey Haim) who tries to avoid his bullies by dressing up as a girl and attending another school. He joins the cheerleading squad and makes friends with fellow cheerleader, Marie (Nicole Eggert). Obviously, he can't keep up the charade for too much longer.<br /><br />I thought this movie was utter crap, and it wasn't even funny. But, judging by a majority of reviews, it looks like fans of Alanis Morrisette or teen sex queen, Nicole Eggert, are the only ones who'd want to watch this. If you're looking for a good Haim feature (or role switching comedy), look no further than 1989. This is about the point that Haim's career tanked. | 0neg
|
Usually I'm a bit of a fan of the bad eighties & early nineties film featuring now has beens...but this film is so incredibly terrible that it was a real endurance test to sit through. Guys dressing up as girls has been done to death - but never so pathetically. Corey Haim's performance was abysmal as usual, Nicole Eggert was not much better. This has no redeeming qualities, even if you are a number #1 fan of an actor/actress in this piece of trash - stay away! | 0neg
|
Geordies...salt of the earth characters...bricklayers...beer...Geordies...happy go lucky...adventures working abroad...salt of the earth characters...warm wonderful people...Tyne Bridge (tear in the eye)...brown ale...salt of the earth characters...cute little Red Indians children in Newcastle United tops...emetic...Geordies...salt of the earth characters...<br /><br />etc etc etc....<br /><br />Please. This is so poor. And you should know better Timothy Spall. They can't have paid you that much.<br /><br />As for Jimmy Nail. Well the kindest thing that can be said is that he is every bit as good an 'actor' as he is a singer and writer. Come on Jimmy, the joke's over. 'Crocodile Shoes' and 'Spender' were very funny, unfortunately I don't think they were supposed to be. With 'Auf Wiedersehen Pet' the opposite applies. | 0neg
|
Excruciatingly slow-paced, over-scripted black comedy with a too-clever premise and bad acting.<br /><br />Maybe this would have worked as a Twilight Zone or Tales from the Crypt episode, but by the last half, you just want it to get to its predictable ending and be done with it already. | 0neg
|
From it's uninspiring title to the flat acting performances, Curdled is very much an unremarkable film throughout. The film has gained some fans by way of the fact that Quentin Tarantino's name is attached to it, and the silly and out of place nod to the Rodriguez/Tarantino flick 'From Dusk till Dawn'. These things do not make a great movie, however, and this is more than evident all the way through 'Curdled'. The film suffers from an all too obvious lack of ideas, and it tries to mask this with murders that are meant to be stylish and events that are supposed to be disturbing. The Mexican music score that accompanies many of the sequences in the film is obviously meant to be cool, but it's becomes annoying very quickly; especially as aside from the fact that the lead character is Mexican, it doesn't fit with the tone of the movie. The film's plot is typically offbeat and it follows a gorehound who, because of her obsession with grisly murders, takes a job with a firm that cleans up murder scenes. It sounds boring and it is.<br /><br />William Baldwin is the only 'name' on the cast list, and even he doesn't make an impression. He hasn't been given anything to do in the movie and aside from talking to his victims and standing around trying to look menacing, he's pretty much wasted. Angela Jones, or rather; the taxi driver from Pulp Fiction, takes the lead role as the murder obsessed young woman, and it is always clear that it's her involvement with Pulp Fiction that won her this role, not her acting ability. She may have been good enough in her small role in Tarantino's masterpiece, but she doesn't have the talent to lead a film by herself. She looks lost and out of place for the majority of the film, and if it weren't for her Latino accent; she wouldn't convince the audience that she's a weirdo on any level. Curdled is a one hundred percent-proof piece of forgettable trash. Films like this often win themselves praise for invention or black comedic antics; but this one fails on all levels. Whether you're a Tarantino fan, William Baldwin fan, horror fan or just a movie buff; this is one to miss. | 0neg
|
Thoughtless, ignorant, ill-conceived, career-killing (where is the talented Angela Jones now?), deeply unfunny garbage. It's no wonder Reb Braddock hasn't directed anything else since - anyone who has a chance to make his first film on his own rules, based on his own script, with the help of Quentin Tarantino himself, and creates something like THIS, anyone who feels that THIS was a story worth telling to the world, doesn't deserve a second break. Under the circumstances, the performances are good - the actors do what they're told to do, and they do it well. It's just that they shouldn't have done it in the first place. <br /><br />0 out of 4. | 0neg
|
Proof that not everything Tarantino touches turns to gold. This is most definitely plastic, all the way. Its easy to see that without Quentin's involvement this would have probably sat on the shelf for years, that's assuming it would have ever got produced in the first place. It is about a woman with a fascination of death who gets a job cleaning up after crime scenes, Angela Jones is unconvincing in this role, William Baldwin is better as the Serial Killer who keeps Jones in employment!. All in all pretty poor. | 0neg
|
I do regret that I have bought this series. I expected more action, more objective picture and more consistency. This is just a pure propaganda series, very dark, without any charm, or romanticism, it is just boredom itself. I find the actors work quite weak as well. O'Donnell might seem charming as Robin (with Batman), but in this picture he lacks any charm. Probably while he becomes older, he is loosing his childish charm but does not gain any charm of a grown up. It comes as no surprise, that it was not shown in a lot of countries and is being sold in the UK for 40% of the recommended price and was not even released in the Netherlands. | 0neg
|
I was really looking forward to this show given the quality of the actors and the fact that The Scott brothers were involved. Unfortunately my hopes were dashed! Yet again we are led to believe that the KGB are a group of inept morons who don't have a clue what they are doing. At one point there is a laughable scene where 4 KGB agents couldn't handle one CIA agent. I grow weary of these biased, one sided and completely inaccurate portrayals of the Spy game that went on during the cold war. I find it laughable that the US is incapable of making objective movies about their involvement in WW2 and beyond. Just like the pathetic U-571, where we are led to believe that the US obtained the Enigma machine, again, utterly false.<br /><br />To its credit, "The Company" is very well filmed and acted. The locales are also exceptionally well realised. Alfred Molina puts in a great performance as does Keaton (The conflict between them is very well done). I really wanted to like this show and no doubt I will end up watching the other 2 episodes but I really wish that US productions would stop trying to portray their Spies, servicemen etc as supermen who are vastly intellectually and physically superior to anyone else on the planet. It gets old fast and seriously detracts from the plausibility of what could have been a 10/10.<br /><br />S | 0neg
|
There is a remark that one of heroines was raped on "drunken rampage" by Russian soldiers, which is completely untrue. This movie should not be shown only because of this.<br /><br />Also there is a statement by someone, that KGB prosecuted "Jews, Gypsies etc", which is "worse than Nazis". KGB was looking for so called "zionist" agents, who were (KGB believed) imperialist agents. This is totally different from targeting Jewry as a whole nation, as Nazis did. Gypsies were never prosecuted. KGB was political tool and used politically, but from internationalist standpoint. Communists really did not distinguish between nationalities.<br /><br />Whole movie stinks like fake. Main hero does not speak Russian, signs in Berlin contains typographical errors, KGB general looks totally phony. Some so called "russian proverbs" are totally made up, and list goes on and on.<br /><br />Not recommended to watch - this movie is full of lies, and phony stuff. Go to "Good shepherd" instead. | 0neg
|
Writer/Director Bart Sibrel bases his work here around a can of film that he says was mistakenly sent to him by NASA. He says it shows the astronauts faking the television footage of their trip to the moon by employing camera tricks. The astronauts were in low Earth orbit all the time, and editors on the ground composed this raw footage into just a few seconds of finished film.<br /><br />Unfortunately Sibrel's research is so slipshod that he doesn't realize his "backstage" footage is really taken in large part from the 30-minute live telecast (also on that reel) that was seen by millions, not hidden away in NASA vaults as he implies. And we have to wonder why Sibrel puts his own conspiratorial narration over the astronauts' audio in the footage, because hearing the astronauts in their own words clearly spells out that the astronauts were just testing the camera, not faking footage.<br /><br />Finally, anyone can see the raw footage for themselves without having to buy Sibrel's hacked-up version of it. (He shows you more of the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination than of his "smoking gun".) Sibrel thinks he's the only one who's seen it. What's more revealing is the clips from that raw footage that Sibrel chose NOT to use, such as those clearly showing the appropriately distant Earth being eclipsed by the window frames and so forth, destroying his claim that mattes and transparencies were placed in the spacecraft windows to create the illusion of a faraway Earth.<br /><br />As with most films of this type, Sibrel relies on innuendo, inexpert assumption, misleading commentary, and selective quotation to manipulate the viewer into accepting a conclusion for which there is not a shred of actual evidence. | 0neg
|
I watched this video at a friend's house. I'm glad I did not waste money buying this one. The video cover has a scene from the 1975 movie Capricorn One. The movie starts out with several clips of rocket blow-ups, most not related to manned flight. Sibrel's smoking gun is a short video clip of the astronauts preparing a video broadcast. He edits in his own voice-over instead of letting us listen to what the crew had to say. The video curiously ends with a showing of the Zapruder film. His claims about radiation, shielding, star photography, and others lead me to believe is he extremely ignorant or has some sort of ax to grind against NASA, the astronauts, or American in general. His science is bad, and so is this video. | 0neg
|
There are so many incorrect statements in this so-called "documentary" that I found myself shouting at the television.<br /><br />Bart Sibrel might be able to produce a flashy looking DVD, but he is sadly lacking at looking at the science behind his claims.<br /><br />He relies on either being inaccurate, not telling the full story, or the old favourite "government always lies to us" innuendos, and people believing what is told to them and not checking on the accuracy or details behind the claims.<br /><br />What's more, his "exclusive" or "unreleased" footage is freely available over the internet from various sites.<br /><br />Further reading about the circumstances regarding the filming of this production shows that he used false pretenses to gain interviews, and has used creative editing of the responses in order to promote his own opinions.<br /><br />All of the claims made by Mr Sibrel about "inaccuracies", "mistakes", or "whistleblowing" in the Apollo programme have been thoroughly disproven.<br /><br />How do I get that 40-odd minutes of my life back? | 0neg
|
The views of Earth that are claimed in this film to have been faked by NASA have recently been compared with the historical weather data for the time of Apollo 11, and show a good match between the cloud patterns in the video sequence and the actual rainfall records on the day.<br /><br />This would seem to undermine the entire argument put forward in the film that the "whole Earth" picture is actually a small part of the planet framed by the spacecraft window.<br /><br />I am waiting for Bart Sibrel to now claim that the historical weather data has been faked by NASA, though that would no doubt involve them in also replacing every archived newspaper copy with a weather map, and the ones in private hands would still be a problem.<br /><br />Ah, a response: "Trying to discredit this movie by referring to NASA weather data I'd say is a charming, but weak and gullible argument. What about the rest of the footage and proofs in the movie? A certain wise man once said something about sifting mosquitoes and swallowing camels. Do you in any way feel that maybe this could apply to what you are trying to do here? :-) This movie is just packed with irrefutable evidence against the claim once made by U.S. government that the moon-missions were a success, and that man now are true masters of the universe. Things are nearly never quite what they seem.. Just watch the movie, and I dear say you'll see things a bit different than before."<br /><br />First off, weather data doesn't come from NASA, it comes for met agencies around the world. Second, the weather data undermines a major claim in the film. Third, far from being "packed with irrefutable evidence", the remaining claims in the film have been thoroughly debunked. Sibrel thought he had a previously secret piece of film, so he edited it and added his own interpretation. Unfortunately for him, his source film is public domain, and the bits Sibrel edited out contradict his claims. | 0neg
|
When I was 16 I saw the documentary: "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon". I actually liked, and believed in it for a couple of years. But then I grew up, and began to think, and when I had sought more information. This is: more info from reel sources, and non-biased sources. When I started at university, not so long ago, i asked an assistant-professor in astronomy about these conspiracy theories. What he said shocked me: He said that all those theories where lies. That baffled me, I did not believe it first, but then he presented evidence for his claims. He quickly debunked most of the theories about the subject: "humans did not go to the moon". The most outrages claim was that the Apollo-craft could not travel through the Van-Allen-radiation-Belt, without the crew perishing from radiation. The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation.<br /><br />And then there is the biggest evidence of all: The Moon Stones. When the Apollo-missions DID go to the moon, they brought back many rocks from the moon, to give to geologists and similar scientists, who are documenting all things about the moon. These rocks and stones are IN FACT FROM THE MOON. Because: the internal basic elements, which all matter consist of, are also made of special isotopes, that are different from quarry to quarry, land to land, and especially planet from planet. The isotopes of these rocks and stones have been Proved, that they do not come from earth. The astronauts brought home HUNDREDS of Kilogram's of these rocks, all of them have been proved to have come from outside earth, and from the same planet. Ergo: The moon-landings where not fake. NASA did go to another planet: the moon, though it is not a planet, but a satellite to a planet, a moon (duuh). These rocks have been distributed to laboratories and universities all around the world. It has been proved: Humans did go to the moon - it is a fact, pronto.<br /><br />But I do not worry: most conspiracy-theorists are generally unemployed and uneducated, that is mostly why they do not know or lie about these facts. The fact remains: Humans did walk on the moon. | 0neg
|
The only reason I didn't score this a one is that Sibrel does show that he is adept at the technical aspects of making a film. It is a technically adept film.<br /><br />That having been said, this is a film based on lies and distortions that are quite easily disproven. Most of the documentary is spent using propaganda techniques to bash the space program, rather than actual fact. And Sibrel's "irrefutable proof" that the landings were faked is easily refuted if you know anything about orbital mechanics.<br /><br />I do not recommend watching this, but if you do, see it at google video for free. Don't let Bart Sibrel profit from your curiosity. | 0neg
|
This so-called "documentary" tries to tell that USA faked the moon-landing. Year right.<br /><br />All those who have actually studied the case knows different.<br /><br />First of all: there is definitely proof. When the astronauts was on the moon, they brought back MANY pounds of rock from the moon - for geological studies. These where spread around the world to hundreds of labs, who tested them. And they all concluded that they came from the same planet, not earth: because the inner isotopes of the basic elements are different from those found on earth, but similar to those calculated to be on the moon. I.E. the conspiracy theorists never studies anything: they only take the thing that fit into their theory and ignores the rest.<br /><br />Another wrongful claim from them is that their was wind in the hangar where they shot the moon landing, I.E. the flag moves. There is a logical explanation: the astronaut moved it with his hand, so it moved. And what proves this: well, if the conspiracy theorists even studied the footage, they would see that the flag NEVER moves after the astronaut have let it be, I.E. the conspiracy theorists are bad-scientists, they cant study a subject properly, or only studies it until they have what they came for, so that they can make a lie from that, and make a profit (I.E. this so-called "documentary").<br /><br />A claim says that it cant possible have been filmed on the moon because all the shadows come from different places, because there are different light-sources, the artificial lighting from the studio. Once again the conspiracy theorists are wrong (as usual), the same would happen in an earth desert at night, with no light-sources. But i doubt that any Conspiracy theorists have ever been outside their grandmothers basement for more than how many days a Star Treck-convention is held over.<br /><br />The Conspiracy theorists are in denial, BIG TIME. They only see what they want to see. So they make up all these lies to seem important - that is a fact. | 0neg
|
I notice that most of the people who think this film speaks the truth were either not born before the moon landings (1969-1972), or not old enough to appreciate them. I think it is much easier to question an historic event if you did not live through it.<br /><br />I was a youngster at the time of Apollo, but I was old enough to understand what was going on. The entire world followed the moon landings. Our families gathered around the TV to watch the launch. Newspaper headlines screamed the latest goings-on each day, from launch to landing, from moonwalks to moon liftoff, all the way to splashdown, in a multitude of languages. In school, some classes were cancelled so we could watch the main events on TV. During Apollo 13 the world prayed and held its collective breath as the men limped home to an uncertain fate. You couldn't go anywhere without someone asking what the latest was. The world was truly one community. <br /><br />Now with a buffer of 30-odd years after the fact, it is easy to claim fraud because worldwide enthusiasm and interest has died down. We are left with our history books, and anybody can claim that history is wrong and attempt to "prove" it with a bunch of lies and made-up facts while completely ignoring the preponderance of evidence showing otherwise--not to mention the proof that dwells in the souls and memories of those who lived through these wonderfully heady and fantastic days. | 0neg
|
this documentary is founded on sponge cake as soon as you put any REAL evidence on it the integrity slowly sinks into a big pile of crap for example Bart Sibrel claims they must have had multiple lighting sources because the shadows appear to be crossing if this were the case wouldn't there be two or more shadows for each object when Apollo 11 went through the van Allan radiation belts they spent 30 Min's there not the 90 Min's claimed in the documentary and they received a dose of radiation more equivalent to that of an an x ray.<br /><br />seriously do some research learn what really happened don't let this pile of crap of a documentary mold your opinion of what really happened | 0neg
|
I am a 11th grader at my high school. In my Current World Affairs class a kid in my class had this video and suggested we watch. So we did. I am firm believer that we went to the moon, being that my father works for NASA. Even though I think this movie is the biggest piece of crap I have ever watched, the guy who created it has some serious balls. First of all did he have to show JFK getting shot? And how dare he use all those biblical quotes. The only good thing about this movie is it sparks debates, which is good b/c in my class we have weekly debates. This movie did nothing to change my mind. I think he and Michael Moore should be working together and make another movie. Michael Moore next movie could be called "A Funny Thing Happened on Spetember 11th" or "A Funny thing happened on the way to the white house". | 0neg
|
In an otherwise good review, loleralacartelort7890 says "The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation." This is completely incorrect. There is (and was) no "secret" to radiation protection in Apollo. The design and construction of the Apollo Command Module has long been publicly available. It uses a lightweight "honeycomb" of aluminum and stainless steel. The entire outer surface (except the windows of course) is covered with a heat shield made of a phenolic resin, thicker on the bottom that faces forward during re-entry. These materials are actually *better* at stopping the kind of radiation we have in space (charged particles) than lead, which is better suited to stopping ionizing photons like X-rays and gamma rays.<br /><br />Space radiation is a definite problem for *long term* space flight because of the risk of big solar flares. But it simply wasn't a serious threat to the Apollo astronauts. The Command Module gave them pretty good protection during their brief (1/2 hour or so) passage through the Van Allen belts. They all carried dosimeters so we know exactly how much radiation they each received: no more than 1.5 rem, and usually much less. Of the 24 men who flew to the Moon (12 of whom landed), 18 are still alive. Only two have died from cancer: Alan Shepard (leukemia) and Jack Swigert (bone cancer). The rest died from heart attacks, pancreatitis (Roosa), and a motorcycle accident (Conrad). These are actually pretty good statistics for a group of men now in their late 70s (Shepard would be 86). | 0neg
|
Lame, lame, lame!!! A 90-minute cringe-fest that's 89 minutes too long. A setting ripe with atmosphere and possibility (an abandoned convent) is squandered by a stinker of a script filled with clunky, witless dialogue that's straining oh-so-hard to be hip. Mostly it's just embarrassing, and the attempts at gonzo horror fall flat (a sample of this movie's dialogue: after demonstrating her artillery, fast dolly shot to a closeup of Barbeau's vigilante character
she: `any questions?' hyuck hyuck hyuck). Bad acting, idiotic, homophobic jokes and judging from the creature effects, it looks like the director's watched `The Evil Dead' way too many times. <br /><br />I owe my friends big time for renting this turkey and subjecting them to ninety wasted minutes they'll never get back. What a turd. | 0neg
|
This film is so much of a rip-off of the masterpeice "demons" and thats the only thing that makes the movie worth watching. The acting is terrible,the action scenes are speeded up,the script is almost painful and budget non existent.<br /><br />If you think this film is good then you havn't seen a real horror film, skip this and get a copy of the movie demons. | 0neg
|
This movie is BAD! It's basically an overdone copy of Michael Jackson's Thriller video, only worse! The special effects consist of lots of glow in the dark paint, freaky slapstick fastmoving camera shots and lots of growling. I think the dog was the best actor in the whole movie. | 0neg
|
What the hell of a D-Movie was that? Bad acting, bad special effects and the worst dialogues/storyline i ever came across. The only cool thing here was Coolio, who had a nice cameo as a freaked out cop. However, the rest of the film is awful and boring. It's not even so bad, you can laugh about it. Just plain crap. And whoever compares this to the Evil Dead Series might as well compare Tomb Raider to Indiana Jones (well, ok, at least there was Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider)! 1 out of 10 | 0neg
|
Saw this 'film' recently and have to say it was the worst attempt at film making I have ever had the misfortune to see. What the Hell was going on with Coolio? Totally unprovoked shooting at people in distress. Totally uninvolving, slow, tedious and detached. Worse than Spawn. long live "Evil dead II". | 0neg
|
I just finished a marathon of this series, and it became agonising to watch as it progressed. From the fictionalising of the historical elements, to O'Herlihy's awful accent in later episodes, the show just slumps the further it goes. If you are looking for some low quality production generalised WW2 fluff, then I could recommend season 1, but avoid anything after that, it degenerates into being one step from a soap opera, with increasingly worse story lines and sensibility.<br /><br />The old B&W film is by far the best of any form of entertainment with the Colditz name attached to it, and even that is not what one could hope for. | 0neg
|
Many people thought that this is a good movie but I don't agree with them. At the beginning of the movie, a spaceship crushed on earth and some of the aliens escaped from the spaceship, then hey killed some people on the earth, but for no reason. Also, it is in a dark forest, I can't see anything on the screen, I can only hardly hear the sound.<br /><br />After a few days, the predator came to the earth but no one had sent signals to him before that, he should not know what happened on the earth, so there is a contradiction. Finally, the predator found the headmaster of the aliens and killed it for no reason. He was not live on earth, t is none of his business about the things happened here. Lastly, the duration of the movie is only 90 minutes long, the summary is too short and it can't tell the reviewers about the story clearly.<br /><br />In conclusion, I don't think this is a good movie. | 0neg
|
Here's an indie film I really wanted to like, but ultimately could not. The lack of script (boldly proclaimed in the main titles) really shows through and kills the picture. The story is a nonsensical mess that isn't worth trying to figure out. I quickly became bored within 10 minutes, then suffered through the remainder of the first 40 minutes--hoping for the best--before hitting the chapter stops to (mercifully) get to the end... even that wasn't worth the extra effort. OZARK SAVAGE clearly tries too hard to be clever, lifting its best sequences from EVIL DEAD 2 and THE MATRIX. As a result, there's very little in OZARK SAVAGE that hasn't been done before, and better. This film would have been much more fun as a 10-20 minute short, but as a feature, it just feels padded and forced. Of course, there's no money in shorts, so I completely understand the financial reasons that I assume motivated it being stretched out to 75+ minutes. Director Matt Steinauer shows great promise, and I wish him luck. | 0neg
|
I had read many good things about this adaptation of my favorite novel...so invariably my expectations were crushed. But they were crushed more than should be expected. The movie would have been a decent movie if I had not read the novel beforehand, which perhaps ruined it for me.<br /><br />In any event, for some reason they changed the labor camp at Toulon to a ship full of galley slaves. The scene at Bishop Myriel's was fine. In fact, other than the galleys, things survived up until the dismissal of Fantine. Because we do not want to have bad things happen to a good woman, she does not cut her hair, sell her teeth, or become a prostitute. The worst she does is run into the mayor's office and spit on his face. Bamatabois is entirely eliminated. Because having children out of wedlock should also not be talked about, Tholomyes is Fantine's dead husband, rather than an irresponsible dandy. Valjean is able to fetch Cosette for Fantine before the Champmathieu affair, so they reunite happily, yet another change. Then comes the convent, which is a pretty difficult scene to screw up. Thankfully, it was saved. After this three minutes of accuracy, however, the movie again begins to hurtle towards Classic Novel Butchering.<br /><br />As Cosette and Valjean are riding through the park, they come across Marius giving a speech at a meeting. About prison reform. When he comes to hand out fliers to Valjean and Cosette, he says the one line in the movie that set me screaming at the TV set. "We aren't revolutionaries." I could hear Victor Hugo thrashing in his grave. OF COURSE THEY ARE REVOLUTIONARIES! They want to revolt against the pseudo-monarchy that is in place in favor of another republic, you dumb screenwriters! It's a historical FACT that there was an insurrection against the government in 1832. <br /><br />At one point Cosette goes to give Marius a donation from her father for the reform movement and meets Eponine. Except...not Eponine. Or at least not the Eponine of the book. This Eponine appears to be a well-to-do secretary girl working for the prison reformers (who are working out of the Cafe Universal as opposed to the Cafe Musain). Not to mention the audience is already made to dislike her thanks to her not-period, low-cut, tight-fitting dress and her snooty mannerisms.<br /><br />The prison reformers (Lead by the most poorly cast Enjolras that I have EVER seen) decide that handing out pamphlets isn't good enough anymore. So they're going to build barricades. I don't know about you, but I have never heard of reform movements tearing up the streets and building barricades and attacking government troops. About three hundred people (it was not supposed to be so many) start attacking the National Guard and building a bunch of barricades, etc. Eponine does die for Marius, thankfully. <br /><br />The rest of the movie is sort of accurate, except that Javert's suicide again seems hard to understand thanks to his minuscule screen time and odd character interpretation. The movie ends with Valjean watching Javert jump into the river. This is again inaccurate because Valjean would never have let Javert drown. He saved the man's life earlier, why let him die now? Then there's the whole skipping of Valjean's confession to Marius, his deterioration, and his redemption on his deathbed with Marius and Cosette by his side.<br /><br />Overall, I can blame the script mostly for the problems. While I am glad Enjolras and Eponine were at least present in the film, they were terribly misinterpreted, as was the entire barricade scene. The elimination of Fantine's suffering prevents us from feeling too much pity for her. That Cosette knows Valjean's past from the start messes with the plot a good deal. I did not even see Thenardier, and Mme. Thenardier only had a few seconds of screen time. The same with Gavroche. I did like Frederich March's interpretation of Valjean a lot, however, which was one of the redeeming features of the movie. On the other hand, Charles Laughton, for all his great acting in other movies, seems to have missed the mark with Javert. The lip tremble, the unnecessary shouting, and his acting in general all just felt very wrong. He also, like many Javerts I have seen, did not appear at all menacing, something required of the character.<br /><br />Again, this film would probably feel much better if I had not read the book. I would not recommend it to book purists, though. I would also say that the movie would have been a good adaptation for the time had not the infamously accurate French version come out the year before. | 0neg
|
Bill (Buddy Rogers) is sent to New York by his uncle (Richard Tucker) to experience life before he inherits $25million. His uncle has paid 3 women Jacqui (Kathryn Crawford), Maxine (Josephine Dunn) and Pauline (Carole Lombard) to chaperone him and ensure that he does not fall foul of gold-diggers. One such lady Cleo (Geneva Mitchell) turns up on the scene to the disapprovement of the women. We follow the tale as the girls are offered more money to appear in a show instead of their escorting role that they have agreed to carry out for the 3 months that Bill is in New York, while Bill meets with Cleo and another woman. At the end, love is in the air for Bill and one other .............<br /><br />The picture quality and sound quality are poor in this film. The story is interspersed with musical numbers but the songs are bad and Kathryn Crawford has a terrible voice. Rogers isn't that good either. He's pleasant enough but only really comes to life when playing the drums or trombone. There is a very irritating character who plays a cab driver (Roscoe Karns) and the film is just dull. | 0neg
|
A friend of mine lent this video to me and I was fairly excited to watch it, but after ten minutes of James Hetfield's slow pitched vocals and Lars banging on his drum set in what appeared to be slow motion I began to think, `Why am I watching this?' That question will be coursing through your minds in 5 10 minutes after you hit Play. I gave the tape back the same day, as you would suspect, not worth buying or watching!<br /><br />Just my opinion!<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
With a story and screenplay that seems to have been written by a high schooler, 'The Art of Seduction' fails to deliver the romantic, sophisticated experience it tries to bill itself as. The two main characters have the potential to be interesting - both male and female lead are "swinging singles (or in the female lead's case, engaged)", but 'The Art of Seduction' doesn't even try. Shirking from a frank examination of these two characters' personalities, 'The Art of Seduction' eschews anything of substance for a basis of thin, lean stereotype. <br /><br />'The Art of Seduction' is insulting - insulting to its characters, insulting to men and women, and insulting to its audiences' expectations. It takes the awful beautiful people we all know and plays out their painful interactions while expecting us to idolize them. Ji-wan is an immature, spoiled, manipulative bitch. The viewer is expected to like and forgive her flaws because she's pretty. Min-jun, well, he's exactly the same. Neither are nice people. The "humour" in this film primarily revolve around Ji-wan and Min-jun's outlandish attempts at outdoing each other in the honourable art of lying and manipulation. No character development occurs, and we never learn why Ji-wan and Min-jun are like this. We are simply expected to take them as they are, and not ask questions - they're cute!, and that's all that matters. The copious references to the celebrity of the main actors in azn cinema scenester's reviews may tip you off to 'Art of Seduction's shallowness. <br /><br />If you're still in high school, you liked Grease, or you are a yellow fever victim, you may like this movie.<br /><br />Despite its "Romance" tag, this is not a very good date movie. | 0neg
|
This is a film that makes you say 2 things... 1) I can do much better than this( acting,writing and directing) 2) this is so bad I must leave a review and warn others...<br /><br />Looks as if it was shot with my flip video. I have too believe my friend who told me to watch this has a vendetta against me. I have noticed that there are some positive posts for this home video; Must have been left by crew members or people with something to do with this film. One of the worst 3 movies I have ever seen. hopefully the writers and director leave the business. not even talented enough to do commercials!!!!! | 0neg
|
Let's see where to begin... bad acting; I'm not sure if I'd even call it that, as it more along the lines of a no-effort script read. The actors didn't even seem to be into their parts and seemed quite lifeless and listless. Sure there was a scene or two with nudity, but that couldn't save this movie from it's lifeless characters.<br /><br />To call the main character a rapper is an insult to the people who actually do. The lyrics had no rhythm or flow and seemed more along the lines of senseless rants.<br /><br />Budget? Did this movie even have a budget? It seemed like they used less money than I've seen in a home-shot YouTube video. Bad lighting, props, poor sound post production. Bad special effects, if you want to go so far as to call them that. Story could have been good if the people actually seemed interested in making it so, but there was no life to this flick; I don't care who directed it.<br /><br />I've seen some really bad flicks in the past year and this one is definitely at the very bottom. Don't waste your time or you'll be wishing you listened to this unbiased review. Check the ratings, you'll see the 1's are rapidly outpacing the fluffed 10's with hardly anything in between. Wish I would have looked a little closer before wasting my time. What a suck-fest! | 0neg
|
I love the munna bhai MBBS but "Lagge raho..." SUX really SUX. I have never seen such a boring movie in my whole life. And these high ratings really astonished me that wat happened to the taste of Indian cinema viewers ?? <br /><br />**MAY BE SPOILER** <br /><br />An educated girl needs an advice from a Bhai, people discussing their personal prob. on phones come on man from which part of the world u r ??? I agree that films should be fictitious but these things are really indigestible.<br /><br />2 out of 10. (2 stars is for 15 mins good starting) | 0neg
|
The reason I intended to give this movie a chance to take 2 hours of my life (actually it was only 35 minutes) was my wish to try to understand and hopefully appreciate Indian cinema. All I have ever seen were few older movies of S.Ray.<br /><br />Browsing through IMDb I came across this one and after seeing rating of 8.7 I concluded this must be the one which will open the doors of unknown and bring artistic enjoyment. Oh my how wrong I was! The only logical explanation for this rating of 8.7 is that most of 970 people who voted are Indian and their only venture outside Bolliwood production were Adam Sandler movies.<br /><br />With this rating this movie would be ranked on 9th place on IMDb List of 250 best movies above Citizen Cane, Goodfellas of Psycho! I am really not in a mood to review and criticize because there is simply nothing that I find worth remembering from this painful experience. My only hope is that there is a lot of Hindu who like me find this movie as is -- plain stupid, with abundance of kitsch and cheesy music. | 0neg
|
LAGE RAHO MUNNABHAI is really a disappointing movie . I have seen the first part of MUNNABHAI and it was really good but this one really make u bore n disappoint u.......................................<br /><br />This movie really waste yours time and money . I went with my friend to this movie on the first day of its release and v both get bore in cinema-hall......................................................<br /><br />Role of CIRCUIT was very small n useless n this movie . I think SANJAY-DUTT cut down the role of ARSHAD VARSHI........................<br /><br />Character of the movie is also not well define like the previous one .this movie show u the result of OVER-CONFIDENCE .........<br /><br />The ideas of MAHATMA is also not define and confusing..................<br /><br />A REALLY VERY BIG DISAPPOINTMENT | 0neg
|
I watched like 8 or 9 Herzog movies and none of them had any impact on me.<br /><br />I watched several documentaries about him. He is obviously an intelligent man, with great knowledge about films and passion for making them, but does this makes him a good director. Definitely NO! A complete anti-talent. He can make a good documentary because of previously mentioned traits, but a film with actors never!<br /><br />He can't direct nor write. His screenplays are full of badly thought out situations, and many situations/dialogues in his movies are so childishly and badly done that they cannot be hidden behind the word "art" in any sense. No way. Not to mention the unskillful direction, so amateurish-like. To say that he wants to direct like that and write crap like that is a lie.<br /><br />Like the scene when Scheitz gets arrested and Storszek hides in the back of the store. WHO IS HE KIDDING?<br /><br />He is a cheater; he knows what fake intellectuals and critics want. He knows what elements he needs to put in the script to get your their attention and empty praising. Never mind the rest of the script and sloppy direction.<br /><br />Just look at Julio Medem. If Herzog can make a movie like Medem can, then I might re-check his old movies and try to find talent in them. | 0neg
|
Maybe I'm missing something because I've read more positive things about The Man Who Cheated Himself than I have read bad reviews - and I just don't get it. I like my noirs to have a little style to them with characters that speak, look, and act like Humphrey Bogart in The Big Sleep or Gene Tierney in Laura. None of the characters in this movie have that style or presence or whatever you want to call it. Take the lead actor, Lee J. Cobb. His rumpled, rolled-out-of-bed look is about as far from the dashing, smooth-talking noir archetype as you'll find. Or, take Jane Wyatt as the femme fatale as another example. This is one of the worst cases of miscasting I've seen in a while. She's just not convincing in the role.<br /><br />As for the plot, it's tired and lacks any real surprises or anything new for the genre. I could have predicted the outcome of The Man Who Cheated Himself after about five minutes. And that final cat-and-mouse chase scene is plain old dull. Ten to fifteen minutes of nothing happening really ruined any pacing the movie may have had going for it. | 0neg
|
This was a disappointing film for me. It came to me via a boxed set entitled, "Classic Film Noir," which was a gift from someone who knows I typically enjoy films done in that style (I insist that noir is a style, not a genre). I do not think it is a noir film at all. There seems to be a tendency these days to label and market every black and white B movie made from 1947 to 1955 as noir, and the label does not always fit. There is a persecuted male protagonist, Ed Cullen (Lee J. Cobb), and most of the film's action takes place indoors. Those are just about the only noir elements that I could see. There is no pervasive paranoia, or any real reason why one should sympathize with Ed Cullen. Jane Wyatt was overdressed and unconvincing as a femme fatale. I do not want to spoil this film for potential viewers. However, I would be interested in hearing what other connoisseurs of film noir have to say about it. | 0neg
|
This is another of the many B minus movies tagged as film noir in the hope of generating some interest in something that is devoid of it. All aspects of the film - script, acting, direction - are mediocre. The acting by the three leads is wooden. I guess John Dall was expected to go places in the movie business but then someone realised he had little talent and therefore ended up doing TV work. Lee J Cobb who is usually terrific cannot rise above the poor script and poor direction. Jane Wyatt is supposed to be a femme fatale but comes nowhere near convincing the viewers. The movie does have two of the strangest looking cars that I have ever seen, the one in which John Dall goes after Lee J Cobb is particularly strange. The DVD transfer is typical Alpha. | 0neg
|
I didn't know if i would laugh or cry seeing this. Only addicted fans of danni filth could have a taste for this. This is supposed to be a horror movie but there's only filth in this. The most cool scene is the car accident, with real special effects from the best of hollywood. Avoid this movie at all costs. See this only for studies of how bad can be a movie................ | 0neg
|
Check out the film's website, more time was put into making that than in the writing of the script for this movie. It couldn't be more off in it's boasting. Original story? Original? They must have found the script tucked away between the old testament, or face legal repercussion for that bit of horn-tooting. High-end special effects? Come on, I could do better with an Atari 7600 and a jug of earwax. Stylish cinematography? Oh yes, the America's funniest home video look is still a classic. I'm sure they had little money available for this title, so of course the sf aren't really that good, or a bit bad now and then, or just plain hilarious, but it's the story that makes this film a waste of time and money. 4 stories rolled into one and all of them brainless bits of seen-befores and done-already's. | 0neg
|
Now look, I won't lie to you, but I only got this movie for $3.99 from a friend because it had Danni Filth, the lead singer of the ever popular death metal band "Cradle Of Filth" in it. I expected of course violence and gore at its finest, as that is what Mr Filth can be portrayed as, amongst a plot line.<br /><br />But dear god, I was oh so wrong. This movie seriously bites, big time. Being a low budget film (haha, wait, make that ZERO BUDGET), this obviously lacks the beautiful Howard Stern orchestra musical scores and the Spielberg special effects. Nope, it's all one camera, bad angles, and bad blood scenes.<br /><br />Take for example when our star and violent fiend, Mr Filth, violently kills a mugger. A grab at the throat, and blood spits out, but oh my, it looks like there's a juice packet filled with fake blood in the man's shirt.<br /><br />To you Cradle Of Filth fans: You'll hear two songs throughout the movie, but with the camera angles and shoddy filming, they drag the overall pleasure of the song DOWN.<br /><br />My final comment: Steer well away from it. It's blood, gore, breasts, and hey, even a shoddy story to go with it. So if you like appalling violence, near no voices (yes, there's hardly any words in this movie), then by all means, buy it. But if shoddy movies isn't your thing, then avoid it. Don't waste your money. | 0neg
|
This sure is one comedy I'm not likely to forget for a while.<br /><br />Wouldn't normally bother to comment on this movie: it's so minor that no one would watch it anyway, but as it happens, it's kind of popular in p2p sharing networks such as Kazaa, and so this saaad production needs to be exposed for what it is.<br /><br />So what is it then? Well, of course it's not really a comedy; instead, it's intended as a horror flick -- "intended" very much being the key word here. The script is a totally incoherent and unbalanced mess, the special effects are only special in that they're especially pathetic, and as for the acting, well, let's just say that if this had been my graduating play at primary school, my teachers would have burst out crying at our talent.<br /><br />Of course I realise that this is a very low budget film and that in those cases one should lower one's expectations, certainly as far as things like special effects are concerned. Also, even though I'm a big fan of the horror genre, I'm aware that these movies are only rarely the places to look for interesting scripts and top notch acting.<br /><br />But still.<br /><br />B-movies often have some redeeming features to make up for the lack of funding, such as humour. The only laughs in Cradle to Fear lie in the ridiculous performances. If you can find the humour in that--and I could for the first 20 minutes or so, gradually dozing off after that--then that's going to be the only thing the movie has to offer. Oh, that and two or three pairs of breasts.<br /><br />Woohoo, how exciting.<br /><br />As for the story, it's not even that it doesn't try to convey anything: the victims either use drugs and/or are involved in serious crime. The lesson: Watch out, naughty boys and girls, because one day you'll be made to pay for what you've done.<br /><br />I rest my case.<br /><br />So, all in all, a little bit of sex, a fair amount of drugs, but absolutely zero rock 'n roll.<br /><br />I rate this one 1 out of 10, but would go to 0 if I could. Or perhaps I wouldn't: it deserves a 1 for spelling the actors' names correctly in the titles. I mean, that's something, innit? | 0neg
|
Cradle of Fear<br /><br />This isn't a movie where intricate delicate little narrative nuances occupy our attention. This is not a film where the special effects are supposed to leave us slack-jacked uttering that sense of whoa. What it is though is a slice of lo-fi goth horror which leaves little to the imagination, created in the eyes of the director, Alex Chandon, as "a throwback to sleazy '70s and '80s horror".<br /><br />This is a very visceral experience for 2 hours, where four plot lines are connected through lots of watery blood, reams of dismembered body parts and innards, tied by an intestinal thread of revenge. <br /><br />The purveyor of such horrific violence is Dani Filth, lead-singer of the metal band Cradle of Filth, executing a role he was destined to play. <br /><br />As other's have said, there is nothing new about wanting to carryout occultist revenge. In this particular context a convicted sexual predator and murderer, Kemper, the father of our devilish avenging-angel, compels his son to exact retribution on those who are some how connected to convicting him to purgatory within an insane asylum.<br /><br />What this provides for the Chandon, who should be congratulated on also penning and editing this piece, is the opportunity to let his sick mind run free. He seems to take delight in the idea of splattering blood into the orifices of those on screen, and into every nook and cranny that can be reached. We are also treated to close-ups of skull's being crushed, demonic rape, and other assorted imagery to engage those who relish getting up close and personal to their horror. And for some of those who closely follow these type of films, there is the odd sequence which may have you thinking, "Did I just see what I thought I did", because of course Pretty Woman this 'aint. It reminds me of some of the gore-fests created out of Italian horror some 20 to 30 years ago, and a number of other works where disgusting images have left their mark but not the context in which they were viewed.<br /><br />Story 4 of the set is particularly intriguing where the idea of ones obsession can ultimately lead to death in the pursuit of internet violence through the "Sick Room", where the user is in control of how a life can be snuffed out. Further acknowledgements should also go out to a pounding soundtrack that allows Filth to exercise his daytime talent, and an effective use of drum and bass, often overlooked in film-making as a viable form of supporting visuals. Using the city of London as a backdrop with real people as opposed to movie stand-ins also adds support to the commando feel of the film. OK, classic it may not be, but blood, guts, intestines, occult and demons in a slightly perverse unproblematic way it is. | 0neg
|
...and you can look at that statement in different ways, by the way. First of all, it's a mess because of all the gruesome and extremely violent scenes. Your wildest imagination doesn't even come close to some of the explicitly shown scenes here. Entire parts of this movie are just plain sick, disgusting, offensive, brutal and they bring you close to puking your guts out. Now, I love horror movies and I am very 'pro-violence', but I do think that it has to lead somewhere !! Is that too much to ask ? Cradle of Fear is just a series of utterly sick and twisted thoughts. The "movie" contains out of four separate chapters connected by a wraparound story. This results in endless showing of torture, murder and sickness only to find out that the victims have something in common. Not very informative, if you ask me. And yet - it has to be said - the basic plot idea surely HAS potential. It's about a cannibalistic hypnotist who made a deal with the devil himself to avenge himself and cause misery and death to everyone who was involved in his trial. Personally, I think that is an interesting topic, so they should have focused on that a little more instead of wanting to create the most disgusting movie ever.<br /><br />Secondly, the whole production of this movie was a mess. They didn't have much of a budget and they spent it all on fake blood and guts...Tons of it !! The acting performances are a joke and some of the worst I've ever seen. Any other special effects besides the make-up looks very amateurish ( Like that attempt to a realistic car crash, for example ). There's no tension or atmosphere to detect anywhere...not even an attempt to build up one.<br /><br />Cradle of Fear is a failure and a missed opportunity to say the least. With the presence of death-metal icon Danni Filth ( from the band Cradle of filth..get the link ? ) this movie is obviously only meant for the eyes of twisted teenagers who try to be controversial. Troubled girls and boys who take pleasure in worrying their parents by watching crap like this. And then people keep complaining that the amount of suicides and juvenile delinquency is increasing...Bah. I can imagine that this movie can cause a lot of damage when you're easily influenced or dispose of an unstable mind. For every self-respecting horror fan, this movie is an insult. | 0neg
|
This film is a very funny film. The violence is bad, the acting is...Well Dani, stick to singing or screaming or whatever the hell it is you usually do. The random chicks wearing hardly anything is just to catch sexually-frustrated goth lads in. Personally, i think this movie really does suck. The story and characters COULD be very good, if say the directing, the actors and other little nibby things were made better. But the film is just bad, the only reason why people like this piece of crap is because it has Danni in it. This film is possibly the worst B-rate film ever. And, believe me that's hard to achieve, especially when you're competing with Def by Temptation and over crappy excuses for "serious" horror movies. I'm not a CoF fan, and so i just see this as another rubbish movie...A really bad one. If Dani made this as a comedy then, good going him. Very well done. Over than that though, i rate it low, for it's crappiness. Watch it when you're in a happy, happy, joy, joy mode so you can laugh at everything or if you're high on multiple different types of drugs. | 0neg
|
This movie was made for fans of Dani (and Cradle of Filth). I am not one of them. I think he's just an imitator riding the black metal bandwagon (still, I'm generally not a fan of black metal). But as I was carrying this DVD case to pay for it, I convinced myself, that the less authentic something is the more it tries to be convincing. Thus I assumed I'm in for a roller-coaster ride of rubber gore and do-it-yourself splatter with a sinister background. Now, that is what I do like.<br /><br />I got home and popped it in. My patience lasted 15 minutes. AWFUL camera work and DISGUSTING quality. And that was then (2002), that it looked like it was shot using a Hi8 camcorder. I left it on the shelf. Maybe a nice evening with beer and Bmovies would create a nice setting for this... picture. <br /><br />After a couple of months I got back to it (in mentioned surroundings) and saw half. Then not only the mentioned aspects annoyed me. My disliking evolved. I noticed how funny Dani (1,65m; 5'5" height) looked in his platform shoes ripping a head of a mugger apart. (Yes, ripping. His head apparently had no skull.) I also found that this movie may have no sense. Still, I haven't finished it yet, so I wasn't positive.<br /><br />After a couple more tries I finally managed to finish this flick - a couple of months back... (Yes, it took me 5,5 years.) So - Dani in fact was funny as Satan/Manson/super-evil-man's HELPER and the movie DID NOT make sense. See our bad person employs Dani to do bad things. He delivers. Why? Well I guess he's just very, very bad. As a matter of fact they both are and that is pretty much it.<br /><br />We have a couple of short stories joined by Dani's character. My favourite was about a guy, who STEALS SOMEONE'S LEG, because he wants to use it as his own. Yeah, exactly. <br /><br />The acting's ROCK BOTTOM. The CGI is the worst ever. I mean Stinger beats it (and, boy, is Stinger's CGI baaaaad). The story has no sense. And the quality is... Let's just say it is not satisfying. The only thing that might keep you watching is the unmotivated violence and gore. Blood and guts are made pretty well. Why, you can actually see that the movie originated there and then moved on. (Example - Dani 'The Man' Filth takes a stuffed cat - fake as can be - and guts it... and then eats what fell out. Why? We never know. We do know, however, that this cat must have been on illegal substances, as his heart is almost half his size.)<br /><br />You might think, after my comment that this movie is so bad it's good, but it's just bad. Cradle of Filth fans can add 3 points. I added one for gore. | 0neg
|
This movie has a few things going for it right off the bat. Having Dani Filth as a lead actor is automatically going to make some people like this movie. Admittedly, I love Cradle of Filth and listened to the soundtrack to this movie long before I watched it. Dani Filth is a very recognizable character and makes for a great lead. The independent filming style of the movie is great for the creepy factor. There are some GORGEOUS actresses in this movie. For being low budget, the special effects weren't bad either. The ways that people died were very creative and nightmarish.<br /><br />Now on to the cons. There is VERY little talking throughout this whole movie, thus making for very little as far as character development. It's hard to fear for the lives of limp, static characters. When there was a little talking, the F bomb was abundant, popping up in random places. Yes, I understand people swear but it seems like a preteen boy scripted this and thought himself cool for including all the language. The storyline, what I could make out of it, was pretty good although many parts are left dangling and the lack of conversation leaves one often wondering what's happening.<br /><br />In the end, Cradle of Fear is like a porno for people who love sex and violence, but like a porno trying to pull of a storyline, it just doesn't work too well. Rent it though, if you're a morbid person looking to sate your blood and flesh appetite. | 0neg
|
Normally when I go on a raid of the local Hollywood Video I head towards the B-Horror movies. To me the basic principals behind a B-Horror movie is it's camp value, Heavy Gore, Lots of needless Nudity, and special effects that anyone can put together with a pack of corn syrup and latex. I rented Cradle of Fear strictly because I've been a fan of the band since they released they're first Demo in 1995. The movie started off on an interesting note and then when I saw Dani Filth stomp on an extremely obvious latex mask I LAUGHED. When I saw the Lesbian sex scene for the sake of a Lesbian sex scene I LAUGHED EVEN HARDER. I spent pretty much the entire movie laughing and when I wasn't laughing I was shaking my head thinking about how a multi-million dollar rock star would want to make a movie that seemed like it was on a budget of multi-hundreds of dollars. The whole point of this movie to me seemed to attract the "Hardcore Goth kids who think death, destruction, sex, blood, and Satan are the greatest things invented since Lava Lamps. That was really it. To me this movie seemed like 80.5% of the things that happened in this movie just happened for the sake of being Satanic. This movie had a lot of potential and really could have been a real good movie but in the end this "Movie" really is just an extended Cradle of Filth Video. | 0neg
|
By all accounts, this could have been an interesting film. Featuring a score by the mighty Cradle Of Filth, starring their frontman Dani and being hyped up as "the future of British horror", I expected Alex Chandon's gore fest to live up to the hype.<br /><br />I was wrong.<br /><br />Everything about this film is either cliche or inept. The short story anthology setup was done to death (and much better) in the seventies and eighties. Admittedly, the idea of 'the sick room' did send a chill down my spine, but as with most of the film was let down by bad script writing and acting.<br /><br />Chandon cannot write dialogue. Every sentence with the main police investigator is brim full with swearing and insolence (the typical 'cop on the edge' formula. funny, i'm sure i've seen that somewhere else before...) No Chandon, you are not Tarantino. Or Scorsese. It sounds BAD. Add ludicrously OTT acting with very dodgy casting (don't get me wrong, Dani Filth is a great singer and musician, but actor he ain't) and the performances are beyond laughable to the vein burstingly cringing. Give me Bruce Campbell any day.<br /><br />The visual effects are on the whole poor, with some atrocious CGI, awful gore effects (for goodness sakes, Peter Jackson did better and that was over ten years ago with less budget) and editing filters that shriek OVER-USE! As for the often mistimed use of Cradle Of Filth's score... man, they should sue.<br /><br />The fundamental problem with Cradle Of Fear is that it takes itself seriously, trying to build atmosphere and incite terror and repulsion within its audience. too many good horror films made in the seventies and eighties do this so much better with far superior gore effects (eg: maniac, zombie flesh eaters, the beyond, suspiria etc), rendering Cradle of Fear, in my mind, second-rate and obsolete.<br /><br />I hope Chandon can learn from this hideous ghoul of a film and go on to make some quality horror that actually scares.<br /><br />Better luck next time. | 0neg
|
The directors cut version, which was the one I saw, was very long for this type of movie. Almost two hours is way too long. If you have the choice, definitely go for the non-directors cut.<br /><br />The main plot is almost not taken up at all, the movie consists to the main part of several murder scenes, which are connected but the feeling is that they're only shown in order to fill the movie with splatterish violence. The connection is not revealed until the latter part and the lack of context bored me out long before I was there.<br /><br />As a horror movie it doesn't work. You never get the required feel for the characters due to mediocre acting and the general disposition (character is presented, 15 minutes later character is dead). This pictures strong side lies in the splatter part. | 0neg
|
Not since Caligula have I considered turning off the movie half-way through....but then with this one, I was only 15 minutes in when I considered. Unfortunately, I did make it all the way through. Make sure that you do not.<br /><br />It's not that Cradle of Fear is shocking or gory or scary or frightening or sexual. It's that it's not any of those things, yet it so desperately wants to be all of them. Instead, it's boring, trite, ordinary, predictable, and unexceptionally poorly executed (shot on video, high school special effects, no sense of even basic visual storytelling, dialog barely audible...not that it's worth hearing, though).<br /><br />This movie is proof for the argument that even the straight-to-video distributors need to draw a line in the sand somewhere. | 0neg
|
It SURPRISINGLY had a plot! ;) I've seen movies with less plot (I don't wanna mention Asian movies but...). I thought the camera wasn't bad at all for a cheap movie like this, and also the atmosphere wasn't too bad. There is no real reason for most things people do and the way they react to what happens. Although I do think that about a lot of movies, in this case it was horrible, of course.<br /><br />It ripped off some movies SO badly just for single scenes. The acting was bad but I've seen worse. The movie was bad but I've seen worse. Watching this film is an experience between boredom, laughing fits, death wish, sadism, horniness and entertainment on a low level.<br /><br />So if you like gory movies with stupid plots this one is the right film for you.<br /><br />I gave it 3/10, because it CAN be entertaining if you don't expect to see a good movie and you're in the right mood. | 0neg
|
Sadly,this is not 'the best British gore film since hellraiser', though the DVD cover claims this, which is what tricked me into buying it. It is, however, an homage to many of the great horrors of old, films from most notably the Amicus stable.<br /><br />Cradle... is shot on mini dv, which though we all know has more of a TV feel than a movie, can be done so much better. Every scene, set and shot looks like it has been lit in exactly the same way (standard key, fill, rear setup), which only enhances the cheap look of the finished piece. The gore content is, quite frankly, laughable. From the opening shots where we see a man's obviously foam rubber head torn apart, through to tacky cheap prop hammers, the creature effects and the terrible cg, there was nothing in there that impressed me at all.<br /><br />The acting is abominable, from the near-comatose detective to the brummie dwarf, via Dani Filth, the least convincing horror movie bad guy I have ever witnessed. Each of the substories is more formulaic than the last, and the sets get worse and worse as the movie runs. Look out for the 'Mental Asylum' - a Georgian semi detached house with a bad cg sign outside, and the most bizarre (and not in a good way) padded cell I have seen.<br /><br />It took me four attempts to get to the end of the film without my attention wandering (nay, running) away at any available opportunity. I actually found myself dusting at one point while the film was running.<br /><br />It does, however, mark one of the last known appearances of Emily Booth's breasts, which I guess is one (um, two) things it has going for it. Once that's out of the way though, it is all downhill.<br /><br />I've heard people say good things about Alex Chandon, and I would love to believe them, but on this evidence I'm not likely to. If you want a decent homage to Amicus, avoid this and go for the League of Gentlemen Christmas special instead.<br /><br />Currently battling it out with Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows for the title of worst film I have ever seen. | 0neg
|
This may have been made for the hell of it, but it was most probably the worst film i've seen in years, The best thing about the entire DVD would be the case!!! I'm surprised that people took the time to make something so rubbish and yet spend money on it too, I'm glad i only rented. I suppose the real fans of this film would probably have to be sadistic and Gothic to care about it without taking in any CGI or any other effects for that matter, I hope Alex Chandon learnt a lesson about lighting and SFX to make a better film in the future, that is, if he is still in work.<br /><br />Notes to buyers this is extremely disappointing, DON'T BUY IT!!!!! | 0neg
|
Noting the cast, I recently watched this movie on TCM, hoping for an under-appreciated gem, as I regard many films from the 30's. This is no gem - not even semi-precious. The anachronistic clothing and 1930's Rolls Royce limo hit you immediately. The casting is strange, also. But mostly, there are too many dumb and unnecessary plot devices. This film has lots of good ingredients and a basic plot that holds promise, but the components aren't mixed according to the right recipe. It simply doesn't come together like it should. And that's a shame. WIth a few rather obvious, but minor alterations, this might have been a very good movie.<br /><br />The film is about an American showgirl (Jean Harlow) seeking a rich British husband - preferably from the nobility. She meets Franchot Tone and his buddy, who are on a lark in a Rolls Royce owned by his buddy's employer. Harlow mistakenly assumes Tone is the Lord who owns the Rolls, and she sets her sights on him. This early part of the film is a light comedy of no real distinction. <br /><br />However, Tone unwittingly uncovers the fact that his employer is actually a German 5th columnist on the eve of WWI, and that is when the movie changes tone altogether and begins to fall apart. Tone and Harlow are married, but just as the honeymoon begins, he is gunned down by a Mata Hari-type (Benita Hume), and Harlow flees the scene, with a bystander accusing her of Tone's murder. (In fact, Tone recovers from the wounds.)<br /><br />Harlow flees to France, where she falls in love again - this time with a wealthy French cad (Cary Grant). Tone, now in the army, and Harlow are unexpectedly brought back together in Grant's hospital room where he is in rehab from a plane crash. In the following scene, Tone accuses Harlow of abandoning him because she is essentially a gold-digger. Harlow never explains about the witness' accusing her of murder and her panic! That is one of those unreal, movie-plot-device break-downs in the story.<br /><br />Then Tone is also brought back into contact with the woman (Hume) who shot him. She is on hand to watch her paramour, Grant, test the new plane that Tone has delivered to him from England. Incredibly, both Hume and Tone dimly recognize each other, but simply can't place where from! Okay, so Tone was shot and almost died; perhaps his memory is a little out of whack. But how many men did Hume shoot that she would forget one of her marks? (She does not seem to be faking the memory lapse.)<br /><br />This is inexplicable and unnecessary. Hume should have absolutely recognized him, but played it coy when she realized that Tone wasn't able to place her. That would have been a much better treatment of that issue.<br /><br />The finale also is very unsatisfying. The movie, as made, has Tone and Harlow conspiring to preserve the good reputation of the cad, Grant, leading to his fraudulent burial as a hero. Then Harlow and Tone just walk away. It is noble to preserve the French public's perception of their national war hero, but very unsatisfying as a love story!<br /><br />What the film begs for is this: Harlow explains that she fled in a panic in the face of accusations of murder; Tone forgives her and quietly rekindles his love for her; he then carries a torch for her, even while helping her to rig the crash site to preserve Grant's reputation. Meanwhile, Harlow finally recognizes Grant for the cad he is. Then having seen Tone for the brave and noble man he is, Harlow rekindles feelings for him, too. At film's end, the two of them become reconciled even as they work together to rig the appearance of Grant's death. After Grant's hero's burial, we see them embrace and kiss at the fade-out. That would have made a nice little movie. For Cary Grant fans, it would have been even better had Tone played the French cad who is killed and Grant the long-suffering first husband, reunited with Harlow.<br /><br />It is incomprehensible that Franchot Tone is cast as the Irishman living in England, while Cary Grant is cast as the Frenchman. This movie would have been much better had they reversed roles. That also would have been more conducive to the film that should have been... | 0neg
|
It was everything this isn't: it had pace, pop, and actors who weren't afraid to chew the scenery. It also had a decent script. This one had me scratching my head. If Farrah isn't really "serious" about a career, why does she have a manager (and why is he wasting his time)? If Kate and Barney are "artists," why do they sign up for The Mother of All Jiggle Shows (like the "Brady Bunch" movie where Robert Reed wants to do Shakespeare, only to find himself on BB)? They weren't industry names, but they weren't exactly starving, either. And while they got the history right (the poster was released before Farrah got the show), Silverman rejecting pitches for "Funniest Home Videos" and "American Idol" and Spelling promising his baby girl Tori someday he'll create a show for her obviously did not happen.<br /><br />What bothered me was how Spelling's role is distorted. He's shown as the show-runner and creator when he was neither. And how he "comes up" with the "idea" for CA was is laughable!<br /><br />How were Spelling and Goldberg allowed to enforce Farrah's oral contract when the others were signed? And why didn't Farrah or Bernstein tell them she was leaving not because she discovered her Inner Diva, but because Majors wanted her to? This is why, when it tries tries to created conflict and tension by setting Farrah up as the "bad girl" (like Suzanne Somers), it fails because the groundwork was never laid -- that was where the "Three's Company" pic delivered. | 0neg
|
I happened to love the show growing up, along with millions of others. So I tuned in to this movie, thinking if not good it might be at least a bit dazzling and fun.<br /><br />WRONG! I just have to wonder, at the end of this, was Charlie's Angels really that boring? I don't seem to remember it as such. But this movie, as bad as movies of this type can be, bore little resemblance to the excitement of that time period and show. I did see it all, in spite of the negatives, it wasn't unwatchable. But it was very bland, which I do not fault the performers for at all, particularly the women who played the angels as they really did look like them. The movie just wasn't that interesting. It tried to make each angel a "character". (One angel is to feisty, one is the "good girl", one is to into her husband....),all characters were portrayed with one major characteristic defining them and little depth beyond stereotypes. The excitement of the show was missing and the dialog was....dialog. That's pretty much it.<br /><br />Not awful. Not the worst of TV movies. But missable. | 0neg
|
This was shown on the biography channel and was about as informative as a children's comic! I gave it 2 out of 10 for it's attention to detail because for the most part it had a 70s feel to it and the three ladies that played the original three angels looked like them so the make-up was good.<br /><br />This was supposed to be a biography on the biography channel but it was void of everything that is normally / usually seen in one of their biographies. No interviews with surviving cast members, crew members, production team members etc., or their friends, families, and any biographers of those people. In fact I know just as much now about the programme as I did before I watched this film that was based on the (supposedly) biographical book. As for actually learning something that no-one knew about the program and wasn't common knowledge well that never happened. | 0neg
|
The minute you give an 'art film' 1/10, you have people baying for your ignorant, half-ass-ed, artistically retarded blood. I won't try and justify how I am not an aesthetically challenged retard by listing out all the 'art house cinema' I have liked or mentioning how I gave some unknown 'cult classic' a 10/10. All I ask is that someone explain to me the point, purpose and message of this film.<br /><br />Here is how I would summarize the film: Opening montage of three unrelated urban legends depicting almost absurd levels of co-incidence. This followed by (in a nutshell, to save you 3 hours of pain) the following - A children's game show host dying of lung cancer tries to patch things up with his coke-addicted daughter, who he may or may not have raped when she was a child, and who is being courted by a bumbling police officer with relationship issues, while the game-show's star contestant decides that he doesn't want to be a failed child prodigy, a fate which has befallen another one of the game show contestants from the 60s, who we see is now a jobless homosexual in love with a bartender with braces and in need of money for 'corrective oral surgery', while the game show's producer, himself dying of lung cancer, asks his male nurse to help him patch up with the son he abandoned years ago, and who has subsequently become a womanizing self help guru, even as Mr. Producer's second wife suffers from guilt pangs over having cheated a dying man; and oh, eventually, it rains frogs (You read correctly). And I am sparing you the unbelievably long and pointless, literally rambling monologues each character seems to come up with on the fly for no rhyme or reason other than, possibly, to make sure the film crosses 3 hours and becomes classified as a 'modern epic'. <br /><br />You are probably thinking that I could have done a better job of summarizing the movie (and in turn of not confusing you) if I had written the damn thing a little more coherently, maybe in a few sentences instead of just one... Well, now you know how I feel. | 0neg
|
I can't tell you how angry I was after seing this movie. The characters are not the slightest bit interesting, and the plot is non-existant. So after waiting to see how the lives of these characters affected each other, hoping that the past 2 and a half hours were leading up to some significant finish, what do we get??? A storm of frogs. Now yes, I understand the references to the bible (Exodus) and the underlying theme, but first of all, it was presented with absolutely no resolution, and second of all it would be lost to anyone who has not read the bible (a significant portion of the population) or Charles Fort (a still larger portion). As a somewhat well read person, I thought this movie was a self indulgent poor imitation of a seinfeld episode.<br /><br />Don't waste your time. It would be better spent reading...<br /><br />...well anything to be honest | 0neg
|
"Magnolia" is a preposterous, bewildering acting showcase that adds up to very little. Like "Eyes Wide Shut," "Magnolia" is an aimless series of episodes without any concern for coherence. The camera swoops through hallways and corridors, catching glimpses of sad characters. Where is the reason to care for these people? The common theme seems to be people who yell a lot, who can't care for others (except for John C. Reilly's and Philip Seymour Hoffman's characters), and are self-destructive jerks who are either falling to pieces or dying. I was reminded of how much I disliked "Shine" because of the irredeemable monster of a father played by Armin Mueller-Stahl. There are so many unattractive, unappealing characters here, why would we want to spend time with them?<br /><br />Having said that, there is nothing held back about "Magnolia." Paul Thomas Anderson's ideas are splashed onto his canvas with abandon. There are two ideas in particular that bomb. Both happen in the last hour of this 188-minute film. One has the camera flipping from one character to another while each one sings one of Aimee Mann's coffeehouse folk songs. Sweet, but ineffectual since we can't see what strings them all together. The other idea I refer to cannot be revealed other than to say it is completely unexpected and completely ridiculous.<br /><br />"Magnolia" has a lot of great acting. Particularly Tom Cruise who unleashes a performance I didn't know he had in him. And John C. Reilly plays maybe the most decent and truly good cop in recent memory. But it all adds up to nothing. When the secret unexpected event happened, a girl behind me in the theatre couldn't hold it in any more and said, "This is stupid!" My feeling is the majority of moviegoers will agree. | 0neg
|
Great cast. Great acting. Unpredictable story line for the first half<br /><br />hour or so. I was really wanting to know what was going to<br /><br />happen to each of these unredeeming characters, and how their<br /><br />seemingly disparate lives would become intertwined. But when<br /><br />the writers took out the glue to start connecting the players, they<br /><br />mistakenly used super glue and brought the movie to a standstill<br /><br />for the last two hours. I kept thinking it would get better, but it only<br /><br />got worse. Don't believe the reviews. This is a waste of time. <br /><br />Think about it -- Tom Cruise made ugly -- why? The gorgeous<br /><br />hunky bartender wearing braces -- why? I know it had to do with<br /><br />the plot, but without them, at least there would have been one<br /><br />attractive cast member to remember. | 0neg
|
Sorry did i miss something? did i walk out early? The first ten minutes of unusual (and untrue!) stories had me thinking "This is going to be a classic" But it was all down hill from there! The acting was brilliant, for what it's worth William H Macy is fantastic and just gets better and better every film i watch him in. But it never seemed to connect. I was waiting for the big moment where all the stories inter connect and then suddenly..it rains frog?? it was if the writer said "i've gone to deep how can i pull all these stories together cleverely....Oh sod it i'll just have it raining frogs". I like clever movies, i like strange movies but this was just odd and boring. 4/10 | 0neg
|
I wanted to like Magnolia. The plot reminded me of Grand Canyon (which I liked). 4 different lives/stories that come together at the end but Magnolia took a wrong turn halfway through the movie and I was lost. I almost turned it off right then and there but I felt I should hang in there until the end, little did I know it would be another torturous 1 1/2 hours. Thank god I rented instead of seeing it in the theatre. I almost screamed out in frustration after 2 hours. The biggest kick in the pants was the ending frog scene. My DVD player still hasn't forgiven me and I don't blame it one bit. It was a unique movie, but a bad, boring, and pointless movie. | 0neg
|
Normally I dont have a problem with gratuitous swearing in films, but this one really annoyed me. All they did was swear. For the whole film. (And, as someone else noted, get cancer) It was boring, rambling and pretentious. I wouldnt If I were you. <br /><br />Its also not that I dont like films which, as most people who like it will claim 'observe life'. I love Eat Drink Man Woman, and all that happens in that is that a load of Taiwanese people lead their lives. But I could relate to them. I have never met anyone who swore as much as the 'actors' in this film, and I used to work on a construction site. So go figure. Having said that William H. Macy made me grin. Once. <br /><br />2/10. Avoid, unless you enjoy tedium. | 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits