text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
I greatly enjoyed Margaret Atwood's novel 'The Robber Bride', and I was thrilled to see there was a movie version. A woman frames a cop boyfriend for her own murder, and his buddy, an ex-cop journalist, tries to clear his name by checking up on the dead woman's crazy female friends. It's fortunate that the movie script fixes Ms. Atwood's clumsy plotting by focusing on the story of these two men, victims of scheming women...<br /><br />Heh. Okay, you got me. If these guys are mentioned in the book, and I'm pretty sure they're entirely made up for the movie, I'll eat the dust cover of my hardback copy. Apparently, the three main female characters of the novel aren't enough to carry the movie. Zenia's manipulations aren't interesting unless we see them happen to a man, and a man's life is screwed up. Roz, Charis, and Toni tell their stories -- to a man. Because it's not important if a man doesn't hear them.<br /><br />I liked the characters in the book. It hurts to see them pushed off to the side for a man's story. I normally do not look for feminist angles on media, and I tried to enjoy the movie as is. If I hadn't read the book, I might have enjoyed the movie a lot more. So if you like the cop and the ex-cop, and you want to read more about them, you're out of luck. Read the novel, if you want to enjoy luscious prose and characterization subtly layered through a plot. It's the same plot: the movie excavated it, ironed it, and sprinkled it with male angst. It's like Zenia's revenge on Margaret Atwood. | 0neg
|
When I saw that Mary Louise Parker was associated with this epic novel turned film, I was intrigued. Being a fan of the book, I assumed she'd be playing Tony, Roz, or Charis, but more so, I was intrigued to see how they would turn this very head-y, almost psychological (but not psychological thriller) novel in to a movie that would be accessible to those who hadn't read the novel, and that would be at least mildly satisfying for those who had. The book is a complex reflection of society, women, and modern life, and I was interested to see how they used the 3 different narratives that lead to the unfolding of the story in a film. What they actually did was a crime.<br /><br />The biggest error and confusing issue is: Why would Oxygen, a network that advertises as being for women, take an amazing book about how complex, wonderful, and terrible women are and can be, and change the protagonist from 3 women to some dumb former cop with no real motive to be involved in the story? It seems like whoever adapted it took an easy way out by using this guy to straight up ask Roz, Tony, and Charis about how they knew Zenia and in doing that, they rushed through bulk of the book. In doing this though they muddied the story and cut everything that is great about the characters in it, aside from making it so the audience had no one credible to associate with. In the film, these women aren't people, they are characters.<br /><br />In the book Zenia does fake her death, but the book mentions it to get this point across, while the film wastes 30-45 minutes focusing on this former cop running around and doing nothing of use. They tried to make this complex book an episode of Law and Order or CSI.<br /><br />It turns out that Mary Louise Parker played Zenia, which was SO wrong. Zenia is a Catherine Zeta-Jones, Angelina Jolie, or maybe even a Scarlett Johnasson type. She is a woman men can't not adore, and a woman that women are intrigued and threatened by, but in a "keep your enemies closer" kind of way. And once she gets closer, she seems totally genuine and trust worthy, despite your better judgment. She's the kind of woman who, even when she loses, she wins: she's always still beautiful, still rich, and there are always still people out there who don't know her game.<br /><br />In the film, Zenia didn't take Charis's man (the blonde American draft dodger who was using Charis in the first place...) but instead took August and tried to become her legal guardian (and apparently came back to be her Lesbian lover as a lingering kiss at the coffee shop implies). And Zenia did kill the chickens before leaving with August, but it made no sense since all of the build up to it was removed. It's was as if whoever wrote the screenplay was grasping at straws to satisfy those of us who read the book, but I think had I not read the book, I would have spent the whole movie confused, if I had bothered to stick with it at all.<br /><br />And Roz's husband was dead before Zenia came in to the picture (which was weird since Zenia took Roz's business AND home life in the book, which is why Roz hated her so much) and she and Zenia had conspired to kill Roz's husband years and years back. And according to the film Tony and West had been dating forever...even at the party where Zenia and West (in the book) had painted the whole place black and they made Tony seem like this totally with it (and evil, bitchy) person who was always respected by everyone for her intelligence and popular for it. Tony's character was SO wrong in this film...she seemed a little psycho and like the mastermind behind whatever conspiring was going down as opposed to the kind of gawky, mildly reclusive teacher that she was in the book. The film basically implied smart women are evil, beautiful women are evil, powerful women are evil, and women who teach yoga are off their rockers.<br /><br />They basically tried to make it so Zenia wasn't necessarily as awful as she was in the book, and then, in the end, the three women convince this former cop (who, of course in the process of researching this, meets Zenia and has an affair with her that is supposed to end with them moving to Barbados or something ridiculous, which of course Zenia bails on) to hide Zenia's body (which they found splat at the hotel she was staying at, but the film implies that one of the three women pushed her over the balcony, or they conspired together to do it...) and then Zenia also managed to take all of Roz's money in the process. By the end of the film I was only half paying attention between commercials b/c it had spiraled so far out in space from what it could and should have been.<br /><br />If you aren't confused by this breakdown of the film, then maybe you would like it, because I have read the book and seen the movie, and from the movie alone I am ridiculously confused. It was terrible. I get that making a film out of that book is quite a task, but if you are going to take on the task, you should start by determining what in the book is unnecessary, instead of creating some useless character to be our Alice in wonderland. <br /><br />Are there really no fluffier books that Oxygen could be making at least half decent TV movies of? | 0neg
|
I don't know what Margaret Atwood was thinking to allow this movie to have the same name as her book. I've always been a big fan of The Robber Bride and was so excited to learn there was a movie in the works. I am aware that the translation of book to movie isn't perfect but this movie was the worst ever. The names of the women are correct and some of the back story is correct but that is about it. I feel like I lost a good portion of my time trying to make it through this movie. This really should have been a mini-series to tell the story the way it was written.<br /><br />The actors for Roz, Tony, Charis and Zenia were well-chosen even though I was skeptical at first about Mary-Louise Parker. I only wish they'd had a better script to work with because this really had nothing to do with the book at all. | 0neg
|
I watched this movie for its two hours and have absolutely no idea what it's about. Somebody got murdered or maybe they didn't and maybe somebody did it or maybe they didn't. This brought back memories of the good old days (bad old days?) when all CBC Canadian movies were stinkers. Lately stinkers have been the exception but this confused hodge podge of trendy feminism, mind reeling flash backs and mumbled dialogue makes up for lost time. I've never found Margaret Atwood's books easy to read. This movie continues that fine Canadian tradition. It isn't easy to watch. Maybe the trendy folks at the chi chi Toronto cocktail parties will pretend they liked it. Us folks in the boonies are a little less pretentious. | 0neg
|
When this play was first shown by the BBC over 30 years ago, it would have been something quite different for the time. So therefor some people would have found it quite scary, and may well have been impressed with the special effects?<br /><br />Looking at the play in this day and age, It doesn't seem to be all that scary anymore, even the special effects can leave a lot to be desired.<br /><br />Would a train really be allowed to pass a RED LIGHT into a dark tunnel? I don't think so......but if you watch this play again, you will observe that the first train that enters the tunnel, rushes straight through the RED LIGHT! (maybe that's how it was in dickens time)?<br /><br />You will also notice that the footpath that leads down to the Signal Box is very steep and in a poor state. Surely there would have been a series of proper steps with handrails for the Signalman to climb up or down into the cutting. (i can't help but notice things like that)<br /><br />I will not take anything away from the acting, both Denholm Elliott (signalman) and Bernard Lloyd (the traveller) gave wonderful performances.<br /><br />I am not at all sure what is going on......I mean was the ghost the traveller, or what??? Does anyone really fully understand this rather confusing story??? (well maybe i am the only one that don't)???<br /><br />To sum up.....<br /><br />The play has a wonderful atmosphere throughout, with great character. It suffers from not being that scary these days, and a little if not very confusing in places, and has some rather unusual signalling practises....<br /><br />Thanks for reading my review. | 0neg
|
Movie had some good acting and good moments (though obviously pretty low budget), but bad rating due to basic premise being badly developed. The main point of conflict between the two leads doesn't play out in a realistic manner at all. There are a few scenes where they disagree because of it, but no discussions of any great depth that would explain how they can be together while seeing the world so differently, especially since the employment of Glenn is so wound up in this part of his life (and Adam is active enough with his that he supports it with time and money.) Also, several times Glenn is portrayed negatively for being the way he is (apologizing to Adam for his past) while Adam is shown to be upstanding and "traditional," which the film proclaims to be the "good" way in the end. I don't like being preached to like that. I attended a discussion session with the director after viewing LTR, and he said that he presented this conflict between them because, if he was in Glenn's shoes (and he said he does in real life relate to Glenn's view) that he could never date someone with Adam's views. Well, then, I think he should have done a much better job explaining how Glenn could do it in the film. Also, director said he directed this, his first movie, only after reading (Directing For Dummies.) Directing was not that bad, but far from a top notch effort. I've seen worse, but I rarely leave films feeling this frustrated. | 0neg
|
Or listening to, for that matter. Even the soundtrack is a bore. <br /><br />Honestly, this isn't the worst gay movie I've seen (that would be Regarding Billy), but it's down there very close to the bottom of the barrel.<br /><br />This thing drags and drags and drags. It's not that the plot is inane--in the hands of a good writer it might have worked . . . it certainly could have been much more entertaining. There's not one plot point you can't see coming for ten miles down the road. The dialog is flat. The jokes are old. To add insult to injury, it's full of one-dimensional, stereotypical gays. <br /><br />Nothing in this movie convinced me that the situation or the relationship of the two leads was possible, much less real. There was no chemistry, no dynamic, in fact no evidence of why the leads love each other . . . we're just told they're in love. Hard to figure when they have nothing in common and aren't compatible sexually. They like the same book? Huh?<br /><br />The acting is not totally bad, but the pacing is excruciatingly slow. I mean, almost Jarmusch- slow, but without Jarmusch quality. In fact, that would be a good barometer for you. If you like Jarmusch films, avoid this one. | 0neg
|
A truly frightening film. Feels as if it were made in the early '90s by a straight person who wanted to show that gays are good, normal, mainstream-aspiring people. Retrograde to the point of being offensive, LTR suggests that monogamy and marriage are the preferred path to salvation for sad, lonely, sex-crazed gays. Wow! Who knew? The supporting characters are caricatures of gay stereotypes (the effeminate buffoon, the bitter, lonely queen, the fag hag, etc.) and the main characters are milquetoast, middle-class, middlebrow clones, of little interest.<br /><br />As far as the romantic & ideological struggles of the main couple are concerned, there's not much to say: we've seen it all before, and done much better. | 0neg
|
Words cannot begin to describe how blandly terrible this movie is. I wish it were "so bad it's good," but it's not. It's just dull, lifeless, and boring. It's so bad I couldn't even laugh at it.<br /><br />In response to other posters, Anne-Marie Frigon is not the highlight of the movie. The only person less charismatic is the director Brett Kelly, who as a true statement on vanity, cast himself as the male lead. They both look like inbreeds, sister and brother.<br /><br />The gal, Sherry Thurig, is a looker. The complete opposite of Anne-Marie - attractive. This girl is tall and willowy, and can act. Although you can tell she's holding back.<br /><br />All the actors seem to be holding back, especially the supporting male, Mark. I've seen less wood in a rain forest, but he's still better than Kelly. Why would Kelly keep his actors from acting? Is he really that bad a director? Everyone else has summed the story up perfectly - there isn't one. Kids are kidnapped and Kelly steps in poo to solve the crime. I know how he felt stepping in the poo, it's how I felt after watching his movie.<br /><br />Yes, I tried to get my money back from the rental store. This is a home movie best left to be seen by the friends of the director (and if you search them out, you'll see those same friends were the one who gave the movie positive marks). | 0neg
|
Usually when a movie receives a vote of one it is because someone simply dislikes it and is annoyed it doesn't have a lower rating, and so decides to drag it down as much as they can instead of just giving it a low rating. This is not the case here.<br /><br />Bonesetter is a perfect example of a 0/10 film. It does nothing right and it doesn't have the chance to because it doesn't really attempt to do anything. There are strands of a bad D&D novel kind of plot which doesn't hold together and a complete lack of any kind of acting throughout. It is clear that nobody involved in this project gave it any kind of serious effort, because even a completely patently untalented persons' hard work would amount to more. A truly awful film. | 0neg
|
I live in Ottawa where this film was made and I really wish it hadn't been. This is one God-awful flick. I really try and support independent films but there is this stigma attached to anything indie and that stigma is: Indie Films Blow. Well, this film does nothing to shed this curse. The actor, writer, director Brett Kelly does little to contribute to the genre, rather he re-hashes tired clichés from movies past. I am really tired of menacing evil looking characters that lurk in the shadows and prey on the unsuspecting, it's way too overdone. <br /><br />I can remember one scene in particular right near the end of the flick where the whole scene is lit with car headlights. Now some may say that this was an effect used to create mood and tension, but sadly it was to showcase the shoestring budget of this movie. As well for a movie that dares to call itself horror, a viewer will find themselves hard pressed to find any actual gore, other than a few scenes with corn syrup and red food colouring. <br /><br />The biggest thing that drags this film down is the pacing and the lack of character development, the basic plot is that children are being kidnapped and the parents must track down this Bonesetter fellow before a certain time in order to get their kids back. Not that this concept bugs me, but, I didn't really find it believable that when the two main characters, both who have lost children can find time to make out with each other. This is done in such a short time span that it's inconceivable, my first priority would be to get my daughter back and at least get to know the lady before making out with her. <br /><br />The last point that I have is.... and I won't hold this against Kelly, but the movie is shot entirely on boring, emotionless video and that really takes away from any tense moments that would have just oozed style on film. Although if this movie were given a million dollar makeover and redone the story and boring acting and lame everything could not keep this movie afloat. My only hope is that something happens to prevent Brett Kelly from making a sequel, which has been reported on his website, a sequel that was half written in one sitting. <br /><br />Lord help us all. | 0neg
|
A terrible film which is supposed to be an independent one. It needed some dependence on something.<br /><br />This totally miserable film deals with the interactions among Irish people. Were they trying to imitate the wonderful film "Crash?" If so, this film crashed entirely.<br /><br />There is just too much going on here culminated by a little brat running around and throwing rocks into buses and cars which obviously cause mayhem.<br /><br />The film is just too choppy to work. One woman loses her husband after 14 years to another while her younger sister is ripped off by a suitor. This causes the former sister to become a bitter vetch and walk around in clothes not worth believing. The older sister also becomes embittered but soon finds romance.<br /><br />Then, we have 3 losers who purchase masks to rob a bank. Obviously, the robbery goes awry but there doesn't seem to be any punishment for the crooks. Perhaps, the punishment should have been on the writers for failure to create a cohesive film. | 0neg
|
This movie blows - let's get that straight right now. There are a few scene gems nestled inside this pile of crap but none can redeem the limp plot. Colin Farrel looks like Brad Pitt in "12 Monkeys" and acts in a similar manner. I normally hate Colin because he is a fairy in general but he's OK in this movie. There were two plot lines in this movie-= one about a kid who throws rocks through windshields of moving vehicles and the other about a woman with a moustache. Let's face it- this movie has no freaking idea of what it wanted to say or where it wanted to go. THe characters story lines intertwine on some levels but are in no means worthy of being included in a script. The whole thing is weak and pointless and then there is an occasional OK scene. But overall- Don't bother unless you love irish accents so much that you can watch mediocrity and it is rescued by everyone sounding like the Lucky Charms elf -an American fetish that has catapulted some truly crappy movies to success. | 0neg
|
I'm Irish and I've been living in Denmark for a while so I was looking forward to going home last week so I could see Intermission. And I will go on record as saying:<br /><br />THIS FILM IS AWFUL.<br /><br />It is not quite as bad a something like "The Most Fertile Man in Ireland" but it definitely does not stand up there with other Irish films such as The Commitments, I Went Down or Michael Collins.<br /><br />Some aspects of the film are actually quite funny, such as Colm Meaneys American-style garda. But the film itself is shot completely wrong. The bouncing around of the camera and the constant zoom-in, zoom-out tries to give the film an edgy look as if it were a gritty drama. But it isn't. This is an Irish Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and it should be shot like this. It should have smooth movement from one shot to the next. The film just looks sloppy and thrown together.<br /><br />The performances are okay, given the awful script. A friend of mine said to me like it was like they just followed Colin Farrell around Dublin for a week. He gives a decent display as a Dublin Dirtbag, but it no way compares to his performances in Minority Report, Tigerland or Phone Booth. The best performance was from Dierdre O'Kane who plays a sexually frustrated middle-aged woman who has just been dumped by her bank manager husband for a younger woman. I think she should leave her god-awful stand-up and focus more on her acting.<br /><br />All in all, its does in no way live up to the expectations put on it by the Irish press or deserve to be even considered as one of the best Irish films ever.<br /><br />I'm expecting a backlash from these comments because most people I have spoken to have said it was great. But before you reply, ask yourself: Would think so highly of this movie if it was set in England or America? | 0neg
|
If you loved "Pulp Fiction" and like hand held cameras you should love this film. I liked the quirky story (even though I feel that "Pulp Fiction" was the most over-rated movie since "The English Patient") and found the characters unrealistic but interesting. It's not "On the Waterfront" or "Citizen Kane" and is burdened by European pretentiousness. But the worst part by far is the hand held camera. It is so distracting and annoying I found myself waiting desperately for the movie to end. I don't know why new directors think this method of filming is so great. If you are prone to motion sickness, stay away, the hand held camera will have you nauseous in about 10 minutes. | 0neg
|
This was no Trainspotting or Guy Ritchie film. It was a big wannabee. It wanted to be an edgy, nervous-laughter, urban-life affirming film, but it's more of a camera jerky, mess. It's a lot easier to imitate something else, than to create a real story with real characters. From the beginning, I couldn't care less about the characters or what they were involved in. They were always always hitting, pissing, or crying on each other. Only, there wasn't any substance to what they were doing. The dialog between characters is meant to be hip, revealing, instead it comes out trite, and one scene after another is predictable. I know there are viewers out there that really liked this movie, so I could be wrong. | 0neg
|
How Irish critics rave about this movie is beyond me. Overacted by the usual band of Irish actors dragged out for every Irish movie. Terrible script, with forced character quirks (the brown sauce). Romanticising all that is bad about Dublin. The attitude of 'ah, it's a dump but sure isnt it great all the same'. Plenty of tidbits purely for American audiences (the supermarket boss and his horribly forced catchphrase). And the nail in the coffin was Colm Meaney's character. A great actor forced to play this part that could've been written by a five year old. Cringeworthy stuff. The best thing about this movie is Farrell, and it's a bad when you have to say that. Well, at least he wasnt putting on his dreadful American accent. International Audiences be warned: stay at home and watch Snatch and Lock Stock. You'll have a better time. Intermission is a walk-outer | 0neg
|
This is absurd - aside from the fellow Australian who has reviewed this flick, I can't help but think that everyone else who has submitted a review so far was some way involved in the production of Elektra, considering how generous they were with their praise.<br /><br />Admittedly I'm not really a fan of comic-book-to-movie conversions so I didn't go in with many expectations, yet still I found Elektra to be incredibly underwhelming. The thing that irked me the most was the fact that there was SO MUCH in this film which went by unexplained, that left you thinking "huh, what relevance does that have to the plot?" or "so how did that aspect of the character come about?" I can only hope that these are things which are perhaps explained somewhat in Daredevil, which I have no intention of seeing.<br /><br />Furthermore, the behaviour of the characters in this film appear to do an about-face at random moments to suit the storyline, and don't even get me started about the utterly pointless romantic sub-plot. I'm also (still) scratching my head over the fate of Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa's character, which seems to have gone by unexplained.<br /><br />If I can give kudos to this movie for anything it would have to be the fantastic locations in which it was shot, but otherwise I gained little enjoyment from Elektra. I know we're supposed to suspend our disbelief for fantasy/action films, but almost everything in this film was so improbable or confusing (even by action film standards) that it simply frustrated me.<br /><br />Well, hell, at least Jennifer Garner looks damn good. | 0neg
|
Perhaps I'm out of date or just don't know what Electra is like in current publications... But the Electra that I read was far more manipulative and always seems to have a plan. She usually used others to do her dirty work and more often than not some sort of double cross was involved. Just when you think you have it all figured out she pull the wool over your eyes and gets her way.<br /><br />This movie was fairly weak on the dialog, the acting wasn't particularly convincing, and the action was spotty. I was really looking for something more along the lines of Frank Miller's book "Electra Assassin." Which is much darker than anything in this movie.<br /><br />Special effect where cool, action was interesting at times, but more often than not the story and plot was slow or illogical. Tha Hand was not menacing enough, and Electra was not..... bitchy enough. She's the girl you love to hate... but in this story, I just didn't care either way. | 0neg
|
*** THIS CONTAINS MANY, MANY SPOILERS, NOT THAT IT MATTERS, SINCE EVERYTHING IS SO PATENTLY OBVIOUS ***<br /><br />Oh my God, where do I start? Well, here - this is the first time I have ever come home from a movie and said "I have to get on IMDb and write a review of this NOW. It is my civic duty." Such is the badness of this flick. <br /><br />*begin digression* But let me just state one thing before I start. I'm not some Harvard-art-major-film-noir-weenie (in fact, I went to the college at the other end of Mass. Ave in Cambridge, the one where the actual smart people without rich daddies and trust funds go, which should put me squarely in the nerd-who-would-obsessively-love-comic-book-films census group, and still I hated this film...). My viewing preference is for the highbrow cinematic oeuvre that includes the Die Hards, Bond flicks, Clerks, and The Grail. I wish the Titanic had never sunk, not so much for the lives lost, but so we wouldn't have been subjected to that dung-heap of a film. And the single and only reason I will watch a snooty French art film is if there is a young and frequently disrobed Emmanuelle Beart in it. I even gave Maximum Overdrive one of its precious few 10s here on IMDb, for God's sake. So I'm as shallow as they come, therefore I'm not criticizing this film because I'm looking for some standard of cinematic excellence - it's because Elektra stinks like a three-week-old dead goat. *end digression*<br /><br />OK, there's so much badness here that I have to try to categorize it. Here goes:<br /><br />MS. GARNER: One of the compelling reasons a male would want to see this flick is to see lots of hot JGar (I have no idea why my wife wanted to). I think that between this and "Finding Nemo", the latter was the sexier film. You know the red outfit she's advertised wearing in every freaking ad you see? You see her in it TWICE - once at the beginning, once at the end. Bummer. In the rest, she basically looks like what Morrissey would look like if he were a female - lots of pouting and black clothes. Which brings me to the incredible range of expression JGar shows in her acting - ranging from "pouting" all the way to "pouting and crying". Oh my God, you'd think she was being forced to date Ben Affleck or something horrible like that. Um, wait...<br /><br />THE BAD GUYS/GAL: They show about the same range of expression and acting ability that you'd expect from a slightly overripe grapefruit. At least next to JGar's performance, it doesn't stand out too badly. One guy's role is to stand there and be huge, another's is to stand there and have stuff come out of him, and the woman's role is to stand there and breathe on and/or kiss people. They manage to pull these incredible feats off. The main bad guy has the most difficult role of all - he has to SIMULTANEOUSLY a) appear angry and b) appear Asian. He does a fine job at this. I think there was a fifth bad guy/gal, but my brain is starting to block parts of this movie out in self-defense.<br /><br />PLOT TWISTS! This movie has about as many surprises as a speech at the Democratic National Convention. Let's just put it this way - my wife, who has only been in the U.S. for half a year and speaks only a small amount of English - whispered this to me when the girl first appears in JG's pad, and I swear to God I am not making this up: "She go to house to kill girl. And father too." And this is BEFORE THE FATHER HAS EVEN APPEARED ON THE SCREEN. Now my wife isn't stupid, but she isn't being courted by Mensa for her gifts, either, and she's had zero exposure to Daredevil or the comic book genre. And she figured this out in .00015 seconds with no prodding and no prior information. Such is the blatant obviousness of this film. <br /><br />RARELY-BEFORE-SEEN STUPIDITY! OK, so there's this big dude in the film. He can take a chestful of shotgun blast and brush off the shot like it's lint, and he can take a vicious Electra stab to the chest and just bend the metal (or melt it - or something - more defenses kicking in, thank God). But JG jumps on his head, and he explodes? An Achilles noggin? OK! Such is the mind-numbing stupidity of this film.<br /><br />Ack. I'm starting to feel a cerebral hemorrhage coming on, so I have to stop. But you have been warned. If you have to intentionally slash your own tires to prevent yourself from going to see this movie, DO IT. And if Armageddon is going to come, please let it be >before< this comes out on DVD. | 0neg
|
Believe me, I like horror movies. I like science fiction movies. I like independent films. And, I like low-budget, B movies. <br /><br />Sometimes, I even like bad acting, plodding scripts, wooden lines, improbably situations, and the like. However, I did not like Christmas on Mars. <br /><br />It just doesn't work on so many levels. For all the reasons listed previously, and many more. That includes the nonsensical, blatant use of images of female genitalia. And the many allusions to male genitalia, in a very Freudian way.<br /><br />I am convinced this is purely from ineptitude. As opposed to some attempt at doing something really different. I mean any movie that takes years to film, just cannot keep up the level of congruity and focus demanded by modern audiences.<br /><br />I had hoped that the whole movie was just a dream or hallucination by the main character. However, sadly, it was meant to have happened, as we saw things unfold on screen. <br /><br />About the only kindness that I can express, is that the image at the end was stupendous. If this had been used at the beginning, instead of the end, it could have allowed the film to take off where 2001 ended... <br /><br />To bad they didn't try that instead. I just don't understand what was so important about this film that it even had to be made. Was it the plot? Surely, it couldn't be. Was it the characters? I doubt it; I mean, I could live without knowing about Ed 15. Was it the dialog? Emphatically, no. The music? Perhaps, but more-likely the unvarnished ego of the principals needing to be stroked. <br /><br />Much better efforts have died on the cutting room floor. | 0neg
|
A friend once told me that an art-house independent film ran in a cinema when- upon the closing of the film - audiences were so enraged they preceded to tear up the cinema seats. Of course, my imagination ran amok, trying to conjure up the contents of such a piece of work. Well,now my imagination can be put to rest.<br /><br />I am a lifelong Andrei Tarkovky fan and an ardent admirer of his work. I have come across many people who thought Tarkovsky's films are slow-moving and inert. Opinions being what they are, I found this not to be true of the late director's wonderful works, which are wrought with meaning, beautiful compositions, and complex philosophical questions. Upon hearing Aleksandr Sokurov called the heir to Tarkovsky, I was excited to experience his films.<br /><br />With the exception of the open air ride through the fields (Stalker), this movie has no kinship to anything Tarkovsky has done. It does not seem to possess the slightest meaning, even on a completely mindless level. It's supposedly "gorgeously stark" cinematography is devoid of any compositional craft. There is a no balance, no proportion, and the exposure meter seems to be running low on batteries in the freezing snow. The main character is so inept and indecisive, it makes you wonder whether his father might have been alive if he made up his mind sooner.<br /><br />I am also not adverse to non-plots or story lines that progress on multiple non-linear fashion. But there isn't even a non-story here. One must surely enter the viewing of this film with a shaved head if one were to exit it with nothing gained and nothing lost, as hair-pulling would be the only possible answer to a pace that could make a Tarkosky time sculpture look as if Jerry Bruckheimer had filmed a Charlie Chaplin short.<br /><br />I won't rule out that this may be one of Sokurov's stinkers (Tarkovsky's Solaris), but to conclude that he is one of Tarkovsky's heir-based on this film- would be to call Paris Hilton the successor to Aristotle. C'mon guys, don't be afraid to say it. No amount of big impressive words is going to magically bring this corpse of celluloid back to life. I don't profess to fully understand Russian culture and I probably don't have Russian values, but I immediately picked up on Tarkovsky's work as something magical, a treasure and a gift to viewers.<br /><br />If it didn't have Sokurov's name on it, and it aired on say, Saturday Night Live, I'm pretty sure nobody would "read" all these magnificent analysis into this wet noodle of a flick. | 0neg
|
I'm actually watching this film as I write this . . . If the following comments "prove my lack of development as a true, artistic film maker", then so be it . . .<br /><br />But . . . I thought (am still thinking as I'm presently viewing) that this film . . . to put it mildly, is very, very overrated. Again, very.<br /><br />It looks like a really, really bad student film done by a someone with beyond extremely limited resources . . . and who didn't pay that much attention to detail.<br /><br />I don't want to go on and on regarding all the different ways that I find this film lacking, but . . . well . . . I just don't get it (rememeber, I fully admit that maybe it's ME that's the idiot here - not the film maker - for not getting this "piece of imaginative genius") . . . I rented this on a whim because the reviews were very, very outstanding . . .<br /><br />Sheesh . . . | 0neg
|
I was unlucky enough to have seen this at the Sidewalk Film Festival. Sidewalk as a whole was a disappointment and this movie was the final nail in the coffin. Being a devout fan of Lewis Carroll's 'Alice' books I was very excited about this movie's premier, which only made it that much more uncomfortable to watch. Normally I'm enthusiastic about modern re-tellings if they are treated well. Usually it's interesting to see the parallels between the past and present within a familiar story. Unfortunately this movie was less of a modern retelling and more of a pop culture perversion. The adaptation of the original's characters seemed juvenile and usually proved to be horribly annoying. It probably didn't help that the actors weren't very good either. Most performances were ridiculously over the top, which I assume was either due to bad direction or an effort to make up for a bad script. I did not laugh once through out the duration of the film. All of the jokes were outdated references to not so current events that are sure to lose their poignancy as time goes by. Really, the only highlight of the film was the opening sequence in which the white rabbit is on his way to meet Alice, but even then the score was a poor imitation of Danny Elfman's work. Also, I'd have to say that the conversion of the croquet game into a rave dance-off was awful. It was with out a doubt the low point of the film.<br /><br />What a joke. Don't see this movie. After its conclusion I was genuinely angry. | 0neg
|
I went to see it in hopes of some good old fashioned Alice Entertainment.Once I realized I would not be getting that,I watched it for a pretty well made movie (in terms of filming,and yeah..that was it).But aside from it having a good film quality,considering I had been watching grainy movies all day long,there was nothing good about that movie.<br /><br />He killed 42.Why were Tweedle Dee and Dum played by Mudler and Scully?Serisouly,Who can answer that for me?Who can answer anything awful about this movie for me.<br /><br />I agree with whoever said it was just one big long inside joke for the staff.That's all it seemed to be.<br /><br />Poor Mr.Carroll.I'm so sorry somebody did that to his wonderful tales. | 0neg
|
This movie is terrible but it has some good effects. | 0neg
|
Though the movie may have been "true" to Lewis's book (in that the script was basically word-for-word, verbatim), it failed to capture any of the grandeur that would otherwise be associated with an epic story like this. The mythical creatures (unicorns, centaurs, griffins, ghouls, ghosts) are *drawn* in, and as in the previous review, the green-screen flying sequence was very hard to swallow. I nearly laughed to death when I saw the humanoid beavers with their giant stiff suits and buck teeth; I nearly cried when I heard the wolf's "howl--" a man in a grey fuzzy suit basically shrieking as loudly and as girlishly as he possibly could.<br /><br />All of the acting is tremendously forced, especially that of little Lucy Penvensie... I could only take so much indignation, desperation, and buck teeth in the (what felt like) fourteen hours of watching the movie. The actress who plays the White Witch, in all her histrionics, seems that she'd be more at home on stage, where a booming voice, spread arms, and a valiant effort at something Shakespearian would be more than welcome. <br /><br />The sets feel claustrophobic, whether the scenes are taking place indoors or outdoors. Indoors, it's as if BBC could only afford to spend $100 on constructing a set, and so it is very small, and all the characters are constantly huddled together. The White Witch's castle is a run-down, rotting countryside English castle filled with Styrofoam statues and bad lighting. When the Penvensie children are wandering through the woods-- actually, *any* scene in the woods-- feels like they are simply wandering around in circles. <br /><br />The only thing that looks decent in the film is Aslan, but you can bet that BBC probably blew the film's entire budget on building the mechanical feline. It looks great when it's standing still and before it starts speaking, but once it starts moving, you can't help but pity the poor man who has to be the rear-end in the lion suit. <br /><br />Yes, if you are a hardcore Narnia fan, you may want to see this version, simply because it preserves every word that Lewis ever wrote-- but Lewis was certainly no screenwriter, and a lot of the dialogue feels chunky and awkward when on screen. During the scene in which the children are at the Beavers' and getting ready to flee from the wolves, Mrs. Beaver's incessant, "oh, just ONE more thing, dearies, and then we will be ready to go," punctuated by the children's simultaneous cries and sighs and moans of "NO, Mrs. Beaver, PLEASE!" -- a scene of comic relief, so incongruous (they are supposed to be FLEEING from imminent danger, not wondering about whether to pack the sewing machine or not), detracts from the drama that the scene might otherwise have. In fact, the whole movie is peppered with directing faux pas such as these. <br /><br />I would recommend seeing the new Narnia (Disney 2005). The new movie, with updated effects, spectacular computer animation, great timing all around, and a gorgeous and scene- stealing White Witch (who plays her part with all the subtle evil of a seasoned politician, as opposed to a shrieking banshee) captures all of the grandeur and the magnificence of the world of Narnia without detracting the least bit from Lewis's original vision (I think). Lucy is a lot cuter (NO buck teeth, YAY!), as are the beavers (and realistically-sized), and bratty BBC Edmund has nothing on the divine, Desperately-Hungry-for-Acceptance-Insecure-and- Angsting-with-an-Inferiority-Complex Edmund that the new Disney version fronts. <br /><br />Unless you're the type who enjoys wasting time by making fun of campy movies, I would not recommend this film to anyone. | 0neg
|
Ouch! They don't come much worse than this horrid adaptation of C. S. Lewis's beloved novel. While the adaptation is very true to the novel, the acting is simply awful and the sets and special effects are on a scale equivalent to a school play. I've read that the budget for this miniseries was the grandest that the BBC has ever given at the time, but surely they could have scraped together a bit more than the $2 that it looks like this was filmed for. The worst effect of all is Mr. Beaver. I know computer effects weren't at the level necessary or even cost effective at the time, but the costume store man in a suit look was horrid. Better to have just cut the character from the film than do that to the role! Avoid this at all costs. | 0neg
|
I'm a fan of the series and have read all 7 books. I wanted to see this just to see how it was done. All i can say, is that the only people who should watch this are ones who have already read the series and are curious about it. Its pretty bad, and will turn you off reading them. Not to be mean, but Lucy is so ugly it detracts from the movie. Was she the directors daughter? Seriously, I'm sure the beavers in the movie were jealous of her teeth. She had an overbite that would put any beaver to shame. The movie just loses so much in translation. CS books don't translate as easily as the Tolkein LOTR books, or even Harry Potter.<br /><br />One thing they did right! Aslan! very well done. Although the other human actors with painted faces ( beavers, wolf) look silly, Aslan was really well done since it was not just a human actor walking around. ( i guess its like that old horse custume? 2 people inside? ) Also, i would be curious what kids think of this movie. Maybe they would enjoy it? But as for adults, safe bet they wont, even if a CS fan. | 0neg
|
Having watched this after receiving the DVD for Christmas 2005, I came here to pan it -- but after reading the other comments, I haven't the heart. Clearly this is a film that has worked very well for children of a certain age. Well, let me not be a complete Grinch; it might still work for some children -- if they are not too media-saturated and have not become visually over-sophisticated, e.g. from watching all of LOTR and Harry Potter. But if you are an adult, stay miles away; you will not enjoy it.<br /><br />The good bits: Barbara Kellerman as the Witch, especially in her early scenes with Edmund, creates just the right blend of charismatic evil and restrained madness. (At the Stone Table she goes a bit over the top.) Michael Aldridge in the minor role of the Professor and Jeffrey S. Perry as Mr. Tumnus also have the kind of polished, skillful acting we'd expect from the very best BBC dramas. And the Aslan costume works very well, amazingly well considering. They got the eyes just right.<br /><br />The bad bits: almost everything else, but two areas in particular. One, the casting. England is crammed with good actors and contains tens of thousands of attractive British school kids. How could they possibly have ended up with these four stiffs? They move like wooden soldiers and speak about as well. Peter has no gravitas or charisma (and is visibly shorter than his supposedly younger siblings); Edmund is just whiny; and Lucy... Sophie Wilcox as Lucy is so dramatically, visibly, drastically wrong for this part that I can't imagine how she got the job.<br /><br />Two, the animal costumes. Again, it appears that they worked for some kids. If the kids are still at a level where Big Bird and Elmo are exciting, believable characters, they might be entranced by this film. But to a viewer with the sophistication of, say, a 12-year-old who's seen Prisoner Of Azkaban? When Mister Beaver comes out from behind that tree, there will be hoots of cruel, derisive laughter. The costumes just do not work -- I could not, and I think any adult or modern teen could not, suspend disbelief when looking at Mister Beaver. The drawn animation later (gryphons, etc.) works better, is easier to take.<br /><br />So: ten stars for the very young and tender of soul; everyone else read, or re-read the book and watch the far better film that unrolls in your imagination. | 0neg
|
I am a student of film, and have been for several years. And the concept of a cyber, kung-fu, satirical chimpanzee had me wondering, "Is this the film that's going to break the mold?" Let's face it, America has never been let down by any piece of cinema that features a simian costar. After such great classics as "Monkey Trouble" and "Dunston Checks In", I thought that the best ideas were already taken. But then comes "Funky Monkey". I laughed, I cried, I contemplated suicide.<br /><br />Now I've read about demon possession in the Bible, but that still doesn't explain why someone would create such a product of evil. First off, having at least a shred of intelligence, I realized that a chimpanzee was in fact an ape, not a monkey at all. However, I was sure that the filmmakers would clear this problem up further into the film. They didn't. Let me sum up this work of art: A company by the name of Z.I.T. has decided to train chimpanzees as soldiers. Why? I think they mention something about the soldiers working for bananas, but when it would cost about an estimated 13 million dollars of government money to train one chimp, this doesn't seem cost-effective. Well anyways, Z.I.T. brings in a CIA specialist (Matthew Modine) to train Clemens (The Chimp). Clemens is everything Z.I.T. hoped for. He can take out an entire shift of guards, who all appear to have gotten their training skills at the local mall, and yet still manage to remind us that we're watching a kid's movie. As you may have guessed, Modine finds out that Z.I.T.'s intentions may be evil (Gasp!) and decides to break Clemens out. Being a CIA agent and all, Modine knows that best way to make himself disappear is to go to a large city, rent a guest room, regularly make appearances on television while fighting crime, and using checks to pay for everything.<br /><br />Z.I.T. finds out where Modine is staying, and sends two of their finest to retrieve him. These guards are possibly the greatest comedy team up since Martin and Lewis, or was it Turner and Hooch? It doesn't matter anyways, because in the end, for a heck of a twist ending, the good guys win!!! Yay! Hooray for predictability! Throw in a nerdy kid who learns to be himself, a lonely mom who needs a date, and music montages that feature songs that would even be blackballed by Radio Disney and you get "Funky Monkey". The climax to the movie? A football game! Played by thugs, bumblers, a chimp, and the nerd boy. No one seems to care about such substitutions at a high school football game.<br /><br />Funky Monkey never lets up! It's edge of your seat entertainment. Some might even call this the "American Beauty" of monkey-filled features. After finishing this epic, I recalled hearing a story about a railroad worker who lost much of his brain functions when a metal rod pierced his temporal lobe. Funky Monkey is a metal rod among movies. | 0neg
|
I bought this movie from Gamestop's discount used movie bin and the cover caused me to laugh uncontrollably so I bought it for 99cents. The movie itself is retarded and they use like ten different monkeys throughout the whole film that hardly look alike. Not to mention they use a stunt double who is just a short guy in costume making a desperate attempt to impersonate a monkey.<br /><br />The director more than likely committed a murder-suicide with the chimpanzees after the movie debuted in a preview for some other low rent Warner Bros. film and he ended up owing money to the studio. It also doesn't help that he wasn't even infamous for the terrible job he did, he wasn't even known for producing a poop-chute film.<br /><br />Why was this movie ever made? | 0neg
|
This is the story of two guys who found a copy of 'Funky Monkey.' Finding this seemed odd at the time figuring that there are still posters for the movie at the local Cineplex Odeon. After seeing such classics as 'Every Which Way But Loose' and 'Project X,' these two guys figured movies with monkeys are awesome.<br /><br />These guys were in for a long ride as they watched this movie. There was some monkey that was replaced by a Stunt MAN when action sequences were required. It was apparent that the monkey wasn't trained in the school of Shakespearean acting. Perhaps replacing the monkey with Ben Affleck might have helped the guys thought.<br /><br />Maybe a strong sidekick would help like a Jackie Chan or heck maybe even Hulk Hogan. Luckily this movie had amazing martial artist and Jet Li look-a-like Matthew Modine. While some might argue that Matthew Modine doesn't come close to Jet Li, camera tricks prove that he is every bit as good. When it becomes obvious that an untrained chimp can't handle the movie, the movie leans on Matthew Modine to be the real star.<br /><br />Did I mention that there is some dorky kid that develops a bond with Modine and the monkey? Is there a possibility that the kid learns confidence and even picks up a girl in this movie? Even Matthew Modine should get jealous with this one (because using the pick-up line 'I'm second fiddle to a monkey' doesn't seem to work with the ladies.)<br /><br />Shortly after watching this movie the two guys got a phone call from Matthew Modine telling them 'Seven days.' | 0neg
|
If there was a 0 stars rating i would gladly hand it out to this absolutely horrid pile of waste. The fact that the actual summary is perfectly fine and that if it had been made different it could have been brilliant only makes it worse. The basic task of locking up a group of people in an experiment chamber is fine, but WHERES THE EXPERIMENT? All i see is a bunch of unintelligent surfers and blondes chatting about music and culture i don't know or want to know about... The challenges are pathetic and silly. The whole point of reality TV is to show REALITY. If you set a 'challenge' don't make them play with exaggerated props of food and stereotypical cultural elements in 'friday night games'. make them do an actual challenge. And as for 'earning' prize money, thats fine, if they actually earnt it! These people are nuts. If only they would make the show better, the actual idea would be glorious. But that ain't gonna happen! | 0neg
|
This rubbish excuse for television is the single most god-awful piece of trash ever to hit Australian television. The house-mates are dull, uninteresting, ridiculously unintelligent and are picked on the basis that you would be likely to attempt to murder them if you had to live with them. As far as I am concerned Big Brother is the decline of western society, showing how us as a society are on a steep slope to becoming brain-dead morons. Whatever happened to television that didn't target the lowest common denominator of society as an audience? This cannot be classified as entertainment. I think that it true that Channel Ten can remove your soul. It happened to Rove McManus who was once a respectable comedian and, once moving to Channel 10, become horribly unfunny. With the exception of The Simpsons which is highly intelligently made. | 0neg
|
I hate how this movie has absolutely no creative input. I know they're going for realism, but to be frank I just don't want realism. Realism is boring. If I want to see daily life, I'll uhm, live. Tell me an interesting story and we'll talk. I can deal with the low production values, hell I'm a sucker for low production values, but at least work in some good ideas. The direction only goes as far as grabbing a camcorder and walking around a bit, but obviously I'm supposed to dig that because it makes stuff so much more realistic. Hitchcock used to say drama was essentially life with the dull bits cut out. I can only conclude this is not drama, not by a long shot. We get to see Rosetta walking to someplace, Rosetta working in a bakery, Rosetta eating a waffle, Rosetta carrying around bags of far, Rosetta walking back home, Rosetta walking someplace...it's just not that entertaining. There isn't really a deeper meaning either. I got so bored I started looking for some reflections on life in this movie but it's just plain realism, the most overrated quality in the business. I guess I'm supposed to love this, but come on, there's nothing in there. | 0neg
|
I have no idea what idiots gave this movie a Palm D'Or at the 1999 Cannes Film Festival because it was atrocious! I actually watched the entire thing simply because I couldn't believe that someone would make such a worthless film. There is nothing interesting about the plot, the characters are devoid of depth and there is no attempt at giving any sort of ambiance with music or sound effects. Also, if you do decide to waste 2 hours of your life by watching this film, be sure to bring something to throw up in because the cinematography is simply someone running around with a hand-held camcorder and half the time you can't even see the main subjects. This style has been used much more successfully in movies such as "Blair Witch" because it creates suspense. In Rosetta, there is no plot and no suspense to which that style would lend anything. I should have known better when it came on at 2 o'clock in the morning that it was going to be horrible. | 0neg
|
If I had known this movie was filmed in the exasperating and quease-inducing Dogme 95 style, I would never have rented it. Nevertheless, I took a dramamine for the seasickness and gave it a shot. I lasted a very, very, very long forty minutes before giving up. It's just boring, pretentious twaddle.<br /><br />The last French movie I saw was "Romance" and it too was pretty dismal, but at least the camera was steady and not breathing down the necks of the characters all the time. I am baffled at the continuing popularity of Dogme 95 overseas -- it'll catch on in America about the same time as the next big outbreak of leprosy. (It's called Dogme 95 because that's the average number of times the actors are poked in the eye by the camera.)<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
I go to the cinema to be entertained. There is absolutely nothing entertaining about this film. From beginning to end, there is no respite from the gray, grinding reality of this woman's life. It is one-paced, with no change of mood. I remained until the end only because I was convinced that things must get better. They don't, and I don't think I was the only one, as evidenced by the many groans ringing around the cinema as the film drew mercifully to a close. Honestly depicting social depravation is no crime, but boring your audience to groans is not the way to win the sympathy of the public. A dreadful film. | 0neg
|
What were they thinking at "Cannes"? One of the most irritating, films of all time. Every detail of this film, no matter how meaningless was shown. If I had to watch her put on those boots one more time I think I would have shouted. If the point of this film was to show how pathetic a life Rosetta had, then it was covered within the first fifteen minutes of the movie and then the credits should have been running. But no, we had to see countless redundant scenes over and over. The whole thing was filled with un-likeable and unsympathetic characters. They deserved the misery that was Rosetta. And to think I passed up "Tumbleweeds" to see this over-hyped film of boredom. It was like watching grass grow, only that is more exciting. | 0neg
|
First of all, I became dissy after watching this movie for five minutes (cause of the bas screenplay). I don't think this movie has any purpose. It's boring from the first minute to the last. I don't understand why this movie scores so high. I gave it 1/10 but actually it's not more wurth then 0/10. | 0neg
|
"That 'Malcom' show on FOX is really making a killing... can't we do our own version?" I speculate and paraphrase, of course, but in our hearts we all know it's true, and that the only thing NBC added to the 'Malcom' metric was sex. And, boy, did they add sex...<br /><br />Thirteen-year-old Tucker gets a boner and covers it up with his skateboard. Tucker accidentally walks in on his Aunt in the shower and she accuses him of watching her and beating off. He spies on the cute girl in the next house from his bedroom window, and she knows he wants to see her topless but she teases him by smiling and closing the window. And this is all in the pilot.<br /><br />Take it from a grown man- a boy's puberty is so sex-crazy and testicle-driven it is impossible to make it funny for a mainstream audience. The only times anyone has ever come close has been in movies, and you can count those on one hand. So it's no surprise that "Tucker" has the warmth and appeal of a strip-club bathroom. Did the network actually think we would like watching kids grapple with puberty? Isn't this the stuff people go to jail for? If you doubt the show's depravity consider this: 13 episodes were filmed but NBC canceled it after only 4 episodes aired; they then made the unprecedented move of "burning off" the remaining episodes by airing them AT MIDNIGHT so no children could see them. Ironic since kids were originally the target audience. <br /><br />Apart from its general scuzziness Tucker features a running voice-over from the lead character to flesh out the shoddy writing. Even in 2000 it was horribly dated, with it's ska incidental music and super-sarcasm. I couldn't like any of the characters enough to laugh at the jokes and the jokes didn't exactly come a mile-a-minute... Shame on NBC for this dirty rip-off... they're better than that.<br /><br />GRADE: C- | 0neg
|
Words can't simply describe how awful this film is. I watched it on video last night, and I simply could not believe what I was seeing. Basically, "Snakeeater" is about an ex-military man (Lorenzo Lamas) and his search for his kidnapped sister who has been held captive by Deliverance-style Rednecks. The film's acting, writing, direction, photography, and editing are deplorable along with a song called "Soldier" that has to be one of the worst theme songs of all time!<br /><br />However, there is one treat. "Horshack" (Ron Pallio) from "Welcome Back Carter" is in the film playing a laughable bad guy. Otherwise, please avoid this mess at ALL COSTS. | 0neg
|
Now, I've seen a lot of bad movies. I like bad movies. Especially bad action movies. I've seen (and enjoyed) all of Jean-Claude Van Damme's movies, including the one where he's his own clone, both of the ones where he plays twins, and all three where he's a cyborg. I actually own the one where he plays a fashion designer and has a fight in a truck full of durians. (Hey, if nothing else, he's got a great ass and you almost always get to see it. With DVD, you can even pause and zoom in!) That's why you can trust me when I say that this movie is so bad, it makes Plan 9 look like Citizen Kane.<br /><br />Everything about Snake Eater is bad. The plot is bad. The script is bad. The sets are bad. The fights are bad. The stunts are bad. The FX are bad. The acting is spectacularly, earth-time-bendingly bad, very probably showcasing the worst performance of every so-called actor in the cast, including Lorenzo Lamas, and that's really saying something. And I'd be willing to bet everyone involved with this movie is lousy in bed, to boot. ESPECIALLY Lorenzo Lamas. <br /><br />It does manage to be unintentionally funny, so it's not a total loss. However, I recommend that you watch this movie only if you are either a congenital idiot or very, very stoned. I was able to sit through it myself because I needed to watch something to distract me from rinsing cat urine out of my laundry.<br /><br />It didn't help much, but it was better than nothing. One point for Ron Palillo's cameo as a gay arsonist. | 0neg
|
This is a really bad film, with bad acting and a very boring pace Lorenzo Lamas is really cool though!. All the characters are just annoying (except Lamas), and there is absolutely no one to root or to care for!, plus the action is very boring. The film gives us 3 villains who were supposed to find menacing and disturbing when in fact there boring, laughable and just a bunch of morons that i wanted to shut up!, plus it looks very cheap and amateurish!. Lorenzo Lamas has a lot of charisma but he can't save this piece of crap, and believe it or not the opening was really cool, as was the ending, however the middle is incredibly boring, and got me to have the urge to press the fast forward button!, plus The dialog is especially laughable!.There is a cool bar scene that i really liked, but once Lamas heads to the dock it all falls apart, plus the scene where The villains torture Jennifer's family, and kills them were supposed to find it disturbing when it in fact is laughable!. This is a really bad film, with bad acting and a very boring pace, Lorenzo Lamas is really cool though!, however it is not enough, not recommended. The Direction is very bad. George Erschbamer does a very bad job here, with mediocre camera work, bland location, and keeping the film at a boring pace. The Acting is pretty bad (except for Lamas). Lorenzo Lamas is awesome here, and while he isn't required to act, he is quite fun to watch, and has a really cool character, and had a lot of charisma, however even he can't save this one,and he had no chemistry with the cast either! (Lamas Rules!). Josie Bell is terrible here, and while she's decent looking, she isn't very convincing and had no chemistry with Lamas. Cheryl Jeans is hot, but does not have much to do but scream and scared, she did okay at that.Robert Scott is INCREDIBLY annoying as the main villain, and wasn't menacing at all, he was laughable as were the other 2. Rest of the cast are bad. Overall Avoid! Avoid!, even if you do like Lamas (like me). * out of 5 | 0neg
|
Lorenzo Lamas stars as Jack `Solider` Kelly an ex-vietnam vet and a renegade cop who goes on a search and destroy mission to save his sister from backwoods rednecks. Atrocious movie is so cheaply made and so bad that Ron Palillo is third billed, and yet has 3 minutes of screen time, and even those aren't any good. Overall a terrible movie, but the scenes with Lorenzo Lamas and Josie Bell hanging from a tree bagged and gagged are worth a few (unintentional) laughs. Followed by an improved sequel. | 0neg
|
WOW what can i say. I like shity movies and i go out of my way to watch a corny action flick, but Snake Eater i would have rather had a nail driven into my pee hole while my grandma gave me a lap dance .Lorenzo Lamas, pfft more like Lorenzo Lameass this guy has as much acting ability as Bill Clinton has self control. It has all the goods to make a really bad movie even worse. Crazed Hillbilles YEP! needless tit shot (with a real weird scar) YEP! crappy soundtrack YEP! I wish i could give the movie -10 stars but 1 is as low as it goes. Seriously i think someone was playing a joke on me when i saw this it cant be real...... the worse thing THERE IS 2MORE SNAKE EATER MOVIES!...... guess its in demand. | 0neg
|
First, let's all agree that Lorenzo Lamas could never be considered a skilled actor, barely even decent, sometimes just plain lousy. However, in this piece of @*!^ called SnakeEater, the film industry as a whole sank.<br /><br />First, let's start with the plot. A Vietnam vet named Jack Kelly, aka Soldier (who is supposed to be as tough as a strap of leather and then some, which you can believe when he shoves a palate of nails through 2 guys' feet and pins them to the floor), gets word that his family has been killed and his sister kidnapped. Therefore he goes on a solo mission to save his sister. Had some potential, but still pretty thin to begin with.<br /><br />Now, the acting. Being an actor myself, I am qualified to say that this was some of the WORST acting in the history of the art!!!!! Lamas is, well, himself. The jackasses playing the Clampets/Deliverance rejects should be strung up and shot for their so-called performances which are insulting to actors everywhere, especially talented ones who never get their big break!<br /><br />Finally, the action. The gunfighting is so-so at BEST, and the fist-fighting is deplorable. I've seen more real-looking fights at the Renaissance Festival (and those were pretty fake-looking)!<br /><br />Readers, listen to me: AVOID THIS PIECE OF CACA AT ALL COSTS! IF IT WERE THE ONLY FILM IN EXISTENCE, YOU STILL WOULD WANT TO AVOID IT! For the sake of your brain-cell count, do NOT watch this thing! | 0neg
|
This movie has some of the worst acting that I have ever seen! Some scenes are original such as the nails coming through the floor. This nail trap catches these bad guys. The rest of the movie degrades as you go. I can't believe that this movie is not even in the bottom 100 movies of all time. I also can't believe that there are sequels! The next crap movie that I want to watch is R.O.T.O.R. Could R.O.T.O.R really be much worse than this?<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
I was not expecting much going in to this, but still came away disappointed. This was my least favorite Halestorm production I have seen. I thought it was supposed to be a comedy, but I only snickered at 3 or 4 jokes. Is it really a funny gag to see a fat guy eating donuts and falling down over and over? What was up with the janitor in Heaven scene? Fred Willard has been hilarious with some of his Christopher Guest collaborations, but this did not work. They must have spent all the budget on getting "known" actors to appear in this because there was no lighting budget. It looked like it was filmed with a video camera and most scenes were very dark. Does it really take that much film to show someone actually shoot and make a basket, as opposed to cutting away and editing a ball swishing through a basket? I try not to be too critical of low budget comedies, but if you want to see something funny go to a real Church basketball game instead of this movie. | 0neg
|
Every once in a long while a movie will come along that will be so awful that I feel compelled to warn people. If I labor all my days and I can save but one soul from watching this movie, how great will be my joy.<br /><br />Where to begin my discussion of pain. For starters, there was a musical montage every five minutes. There was no character development. Every character was a stereotype. We had swearing guy, fat guy who eats donuts, goofy foreign guy, etc. The script felt as if it were being written as the movie was being shot. The production value was so incredibly low that it felt like I was watching a junior high video presentation. Have the directors, producers, etc. ever even seen a movie before? Halestorm is getting worse and worse with every new entry. The concept for this movie sounded so funny. How could you go wrong with Gary Coleman and a handful of somewhat legitimate actors. But trust me when I say this, things went wrong, VERY WRONG. | 0neg
|
I wanted to like this film, I really did. It's got some good actors but ultimately it falls flat. It tries too hard to be funny in some places (the daughters over zealous cooking attempts), over reaches in others (the scene where they clean up someone's yard, so he agrees to join the team) and has some scenes that, while mildly interesting, are really just filler (all the work scene's). And I didn't find the "villians" intimidating, or worth hating, so much as I found them to be childishly annoying. <br /><br />I've met people like those in the film while playing church ball. And I will say the referee's are spot on, Still, in the end, I really didn't care all that much about the characters, or their quest for church ball glory. Maybe because they were all so one dimensional, which I might not have minded so much if the film were funnier or seemed to flow a little more smoothly overall. <br /><br />Kurt Hale, and Halestorm entertainment, has made some good films, but this is not one of them. | 0neg
|
I've never been a huge fan of Mormon films. Being a Mormon, I've always felt that the humor was too exclusive to the LDS community and made us seem like a bunch of obsessive wackos. I was hoping this would be the breath of fresh air, the Halestorm movie I could finally discuss with my non-Mormon friends.<br /><br />Boy, was I wrong.<br /><br />I figured, since this had B-list talent like Clint Howard, Gary Coleman, Andrew Wilson, and Fred Willard (one of my favorites), this would have to be at least a little funny. And besides, church basketball is ripe with potential for plenty of hilarious gags and such. But I must say, throughout the entire movie, it seemed as though no one knew what they were doing. Every joke fell flat, and every opportunity for a genuinely funny gag went ignored. The dialogue was bland, and the film had some of the worst character development I have ever seen. Every single character but Wilson's was less than one-dimensional. It's hard to believe that after nine re-writes the film was still as mind-numbingly stale as the train wreck I witnessed. I can't put into words the rage I felt sitting through this. My friends and I were extras in the final game scene, so we went to the premiere in Washington City, UT. Kurt Hale, the director, was there, and I must say, I avoided all contact with him after the show. He waited at the door, seemingly ready for feedback. I couldn't bring myself to tell him that his film not only ripped away a good hour and a half of my life, but it left a nasty, painful scar that I will never forget.<br /><br />Here are a few specific problems I had: There was a minor love story subplot between the janitor and the chubby piano player, but these two characters came out of nowhere, and were impossible to care about, so my friends and I were left constantly wondering why we were supposed to care about these two lame, uninteresting characters. There were many subplots that popped up every now and then, each promising the audience the chance for laughs, but each one came and went in a puff of smoke, ending before you could even start caring. This was pretty much how the whole movie felt.<br /><br />This film was a major letdown, and I feel bad for everyone who's expecting the first REAL funny Mormon movie. True, the jokes in this one aren't too exclusive to Mormons. Then again, it's hard to tell what was a joke and what was a loud ringing sensation in my ears.<br /><br />Please, do NOT see this movie. Keep in your mind the fantasy that this movie is hilarious. Spare yourself the disappointment I went through | 0neg
|
First of all, let me say the I am LDS or rather, I am a Mormon. So when I watched this film, I automatically gave it the benefit of the doubt. I can usually find something redeeming in every movie I watch. And this one was no exception. It does have its redeeming moments. But they are few and far between.<br /><br />One of the first things I noticed that bothered me very greatly was that it seemed as though Halestorm was ashamed of our Church! In the LDS Church, congregations are called "wards" and the basketball court is in the "cultural hall". NEVER ONCE are either of these two names mentioned. The Church is never referred to by name and "the standards" is as far as it goes in mentioning what our Church believes.<br /><br />It makes me wonder if the directors are really LDS or LDS wannabes? This film had so much potential! It could have really shown our Church in a positive light and helped the public to see not only what we have to offer, but also what we believe. Instead it was only mildly entertaining and left much to be desired. If I were not already LDS, I'd be left thinking Mormons are stupid, idiotic and ashamed of their beliefs.<br /><br />It is NOT a film I will recommend to my nonLDS friends.<br /><br />Sorry Halestorm. You can do better than this! | 0neg
|
Trot out every stereotype and misrepresentation you've heard about semi-devout Mormons, and you'll see they've all starred in this ridiculous excuse for a film. Finally Kurt Hale's fortunes have changed (thank goodness) and hopefully it will be a long while before we see any of his features in theaters.<br /><br />The cinematography was amateurish (I think they used a camcorder for some of the basketball scenes). The plot was limp and very unfunny. You really didn't understand why anyone did anything. It was like I had sand in my eyes, and a 300-pound lady was sitting on my face, it was that painful.<br /><br />The only reason I didn't give this movie a negative rating was because the scale won't let me. | 0neg
|
The really sad thing is that this was supposedly the highest budget "Halestorm Entertainment" has had to work with. All involved should be fined for littering since all the celluloid they wasted is good for nothing more than filling the trash. Not only is the writing atrocious and the jokes awful, but the camera work and film quality are amateur at best. The soundtrack sounds like it was created on some guys laptop PC. The worst part of all is that I actually sat through the whole thing. I think just because I couldn't believe that I had actually paid to buy a ticket and that the theater I was watching it in had actually agreed to show the "film". | 0neg
|
I went to see this film with fairly low expectations, figuring it would be a nice piece of fluff. Sadly, it wasn't even that. I could barely sit through the film without wanting to walk out. I went with my two kids (ages 10 and 13) and even they kept asking, "How much longer?" After lasting until the end, I just kept wondering who would approve this script. Even the reliable Fred Willard couldn't save the trite dialogue, the state jokes, and the banal plot. I'd suggest that whoever wrote and directed this movie (I use the term loosely) should take an online screen writing class or drop by their local community college for a film class. At the least, there are many books on directing, screen writing, and producing movies that would teach them something about structure, plot, dialogue and pacing. | 0neg
|
This movie is a total dog. I found myself straining to find anything to laugh at just so I wouldn't feel like I'd totally wasted my money--and my time. The writing in this film is absolutely terrible. It's a shame it's not up to the standards of other Hale Storm movies.<br /><br />They should have saved the money on getting D-list actors like Fred Willard and Gary Coleman and spent the money working the script until it was right. Even Gary Coleman wasn't properly utilized for his role.<br /><br />This movie leaves you wondering what the point of most of the plot was--including the subplots. After viewing this movie, I'm left with the impression that the producers were hoping to capture some kind of Napolean Dynamite-like humor, where it's not so much the lines as the character and the delivery. Unfortunately, this movie fails to deliver the lines, the characters, the delivery or the humor. I should have gone to the dentist instead! | 0neg
|
This movie was the beatliest mormon movie made yet. It made the RM & Sons of Provo look like well done films! It was supposed to be funny from what I was told. The best part was the best actor in the movie-Travis Eberhard-if he wasn't in the movie it probably wouldn't have been made! He ruled!<br /><br />10. It wasn't funny 9. It was beat 8. It had Thurl Big T Bailey, who's character made no sense 7. It was made in Provo 6. It didn't make fun of Brokeback 5. It had Larry H. Miller in it 4. It was the 1st movie Clint Howard wasn't funny in 3. Gary Coleman chose the perfect movie 4 a comeback 2. They should have cast at Surreal Life auditions 1. It was made by Halestorm Entertainment!! | 0neg
|
Just saw this movie, and what a waste of time. The movie was predictable and slow. It's basically the Mormon bad news bears that play church sanctioned basketball. Rather than watching this movie, I should have had a root canal. The cameo performances were obviously driven by sponsorship / funding. This movie had potential due to the outrageous behavior that is exhibited by Mormons when they play church sanctioned basketball, however because it's rated PG, the true nature of the spectacle could not be transfered to film. The acting is horrible with the exception of Clint Howard and Fred Willard. Thurl Bailey's appearance in the film was completely unnecessary. | 0neg
|
Reviews for this film were lukewarm at best while expectations were sky high: a big budget, tons of popular faces, a rather funny idea and a main actress everyone loves. The end result is a disaster. Alice Tremblay's supposedly humorous journey in fantasy world fails in every way to entertain it's audience (I didn't hear a single laugh throughout the entire presentation), going through it's page-thin story line and one-dimensional characters without a single spark, not a sign of the magic it wished it had. The 90 minutes of film here are sterile with clumsy direction and some good actors doing their best to come of as professionals in a feature that certainly couldn't seem that great an idea on the set, let alone on paper. 'L'Odyssée d'Alice Tremblay' is a collage of comic sketches, linked together with a (very) thin layer of good ideas. Avoid or boredom will haunt you. | 0neg
|
While the idea is more original than most Sci-Fi movies, the execution is, as usual lacking. While the practical mummy effects are not bad, and the "Gun Nut" character is over the top giggle inducing, the only real draw is to see Morena Baccarin and Adam Baldwin reunited on the small screen. I suspect that was the idea all along. They do the best they can with what they have but the "must see" moments for me were in the first 40 minutes or so when Morena's character sported some Tomb Raider style shorts. Not high brow cinema I know but you can't deny true beauty when you see it!!! And Adam Baldwin once again hams it up as the guy you love to hate. If you just want to watch a couple of your favorite Firefly characters have a good time with some sub par material then this might be for you. If you want good acting and character development then be advised to look elsewhere. | 0neg
|
I'm at this very moment debating whether I should even finish watching this "poppycock" of a movie. They had a pretty interesting idea, with the buried movie set, and that was it. So far this incomprehensible mess has no real story. There is the buried set, some wolf headed monster running amok, an amulet, and a bunch of bad actors attacked by the wolf masked whatever it is. What I would have missed, had I had the good sense to eject this nonsense is a dune buggy chase, some really bad C.G.I., some incredibly stupid dialog, more bad C.G.I., and the hero fighting paper cut outs. Other than the original idea, this film has absolutely zero redeeming qualities. My mistake for continuing to watch. - MERK | 0neg
|
Watching the first 30 minutes of Sands of Oblivion gave me high hopes. It seemed I was in for a cheaper version of the Mummy. The setup was promising, in the 1920's Cecil B. Demille makes his opus of the Ten Commandments. It seems in using real Egyptian artifacts for the movie set they unleashed an ancient and terrible evil (don't they always?). Aware of what had been unleashed DeMille orders the entire set buried instead of the usual practice of tearing it down. Hopefully the evil will be buried with it for all time. Then we switch to present day where a team is attempting to excavate the site (the movie's first mistake, but hey those period costumes are expensive and this is a Sci-Fi channel movie). The first sightings we get of the Anubis monster are well done and it's a costume that they put some effort into and not the usual cheesy CG effect. Then the body counts starts. This is were the movie went south for me. The reactions to the fact that people are dying in gruesome and strange ways gets a strangely subdued reaction. Once they realize that the ancient evil has again been unleashed and is on a killing spree what do the stock issue leading man and lady do? They make the usual stop to the "guy who knows the truth but never told anyone". After getting that vital information do they share it with the comrades at the dig site? No, they stop off at a hotel for a refreshing shower and some pleasant small talk. Really I'm not the most motivated person but if I knew a demon from ancient Egypt was on the loose and killing everyone in sight and would be coming after me I'd put a little hustle in my step to solve the problem. After this overlong and pointless middle section they get around to destroying the Anubis monster in the usual way, by racing around in dune buggies and shooting it with a rocket launcher while it's standing by a pile of phosphorous grenades. For a Sci-Fi movie it was above the usual crap they put out, which isn't saying much at all. What disappoints me is this could have been a lot more if someone had wrote a decent script for it. | 0neg
|
TV movie about an ancient Egyptian curse brought to the US in the 20's during the filming of DeMille's first version of the 10 Commandments and which is reawakened when DeMille's sets are unearthed in the desert.<br /><br />One of the worst films I've seen in a long time.<br /><br />The question is were the filmmakers serious or kidding when they made this film? If this is serious its a laughably bad movie and a great film to pick on for its badness. If its a comedy its less good but funny for all of the wrong reasons.You will laugh long and hard AT this film, probably more than many other Hollywood "comedies". | 0neg
|
Worse than the rating it has been given. This is a typical SciFi movie nowadays: bad to awful acting, a script that is poorly written, and shoddy direction. From the opening scene where DeMille is burying his set to the end, this movie is terrible. In the beginning scenes this movie has Moses (which was Charlton Heston in the DeMille film), Pharoah (Yul Brynner) and Nefretiri (Anne Baxtor) overlooking a boy burying a box in the sand. The characters that were to represent the three aforementioned icons were awful and had to resemblance to the people they were to "supposedly" be. The fact that this is in the desert away from civilization is hilarious when someone is hurt and they are all yelling for an ambulance. The screenwriter obviously is oblivious to the fact that there are no ambulances in the middle of the desert. I was sorely disappointed that Morena Baccarin decided to do a film of such low quality. | 0neg
|
I make a point out of watching bad movies frequently, and the sci-fi channel original movies tend to be one of the best sources for these movies you can find. As such, I'm sure you can imagine my disappointment when I saw Sands of oblivion. The acting was uncharacteristically sub-par, as opposed to the woefully disgraceful display sci-fi usually has in store for us. There are a few cameos made by people you'd most likely recognize, although you may not know their names by heart. The CGI special effects are minimal, and as such, one of the largest sources of comedy in a sci-fi feature is lacking. Sure, there are some funny moments like when a guy gets beheaded by a bulldozer, or when the main character leaves his friend to die in order to save a girl he's known for a couple of days, but overall, it ends up just not having you rolling on the floor with laughter, and I consider that a major disappointment.<br /><br />If I was rating it on a 10 star scale made specifically to judge made-for TV movies, I'd probably give it a 4, maybe even a 5. A real shame that I may have to wait 'till the next sci-fi original movie to get a good laugh, and I really hope that this movie isn't part of some overall quality increase in sci-fi original movies. | 0neg
|
This must have been one of the worst movies I have ever seen.<br /><br />I have to disagree with another commenter, who said the special effects were okay. I found them pretty bad: it just wasn't realistic and they were so fake that it just distracted from the actual story.<br /><br />Maybe that distraction is the reason that I did not fully understand the story. The archaeologists are looking for "the set". They do not bother to tell what set, or what is so special about it. That also makes it unclear why they search for it in California, while the intro of the movie takes place in ancient Egypt.<br /><br />If you're shooting a movie that takes place in the desert, take the effort to actually go to the desert. The beginning - the ancient ceremony - looks like it was shot inside a studio instead of a desert.<br /><br />The action-level was constant throughout the movie, no ups and downs, no climax. It made the movie look short, and that's certainly a pro for this particular movie. | 0neg
|
Bollywood fans pretty much hold Amitabh Bachan's Mard in high regard but I think it is very overrated. Manmohan Desai collaborated before on movies like Suhaag,Parvarish,Amar Akbar Anthony,Naseeb,Desh Premee and Coolie and I have seen all of them I liked so I had very high expectations before I watched Mard and was bitterly disappointed. My main gripe about Mard is that it feels like Amar Akbar Anthony part 2,maybe Mr Desai ran out of ideas, after all he had been using that formula for years and years. 1. First of all some members of the cast is repeated from AAA, for instance the police inspector who brings up Amar, the Muslim who brings up Akbar, Nirupa Roy and a few more. 2. In AAA Nirupa Roy loses her eyesight, in Mard she loses her voice 3. In AAA there is the famous song (Shirdi wale sai baba)well in Mard we have Amitabh singing Maa Sherawali. Having seen AAA for over 1000 times I noticed that straight away.<br /><br />My other gripes are that some of the situations just seem ridiculous, true Manmohan Desai made leave your brain at the door kind of movies but with Mard I thought he went too far. My last gripe is that compared to songs in previous Manmohan Desai movies I found the songs rather disappointing. I know it has many fans that swear by it but I didn't like it one bit. It actually pains me to write this review because I am such a huge fan and have loved his movies since I was a child. | 0neg
|
Manmohan Desai made some entertaining though illogical films like AAA, PARVARISH and NASEEB but he made some craps like COOLIE and MARD and then GJS<br /><br />This movie is one of the worst movies ever made by him the dial became famous Mard ko dard nahin hota but the film is so bad you cringe<br /><br />The British are made carricatures and the film looks so weird The scene in the British hotel is damn stupid <br /><br />The film has many stupidities like Amrita assaulting Amitabh and then the entire scene plus towards the climax the film becomes even worse There are more gems like the horse statue getting life, The masks of Amitabh haha and more<br /><br />Direction by Manmohan Desai is bad Music is okay<br /><br />Amitabh does his part with style, nothing different from COOLIE, LAAWARIS type roles Amrita Singh is okay Satyen Kapuu is okay Prem Chopra is as usual, Nirupa Roy is again her usual self Dara Singh is also as usual | 0neg
|
I'm a fan of Columbo, especially on a rainy Saturday, and it was fun to see Oskar Werner after Fahrenheit 451, but this episode was very lacking. The original plot and plot twists were obvious and could be guessed way in advance, even years before the modern detective shows of today. But it was amusing to see the crazy couch patterns and "modern" electronics equipment and, of course, the mandatory suburbanite humor poking fun at modern art for sale. The high-tech home is a Jetson's or Disney version of Tomorrowland, and fun to think of writers inventing those "way-out gizmos".<br /><br />If its sunny outside, go play, as there are much better Columbo episodes. Still, we should be thankful for Cable TV that these episodes are being broadcast. | 0neg
|
For domestic audiences I can see how they would applaud this movie. For outsiders, with no vested interests, it did not make much sense. The Germans were portrayed as incompetents and the Russians as heroes. The supposedly romantic angle was superfluous and a distraction. How a young woman could 'love' the lieutenant from just glimpsing him was nonsense. How she could, as mentioned at the end of the movie, never marry just because of this infatuation was beyond me. I mentioned the Germans were portrayed as idiots and that was exemplified in the chase into the marsh. Several hundred German troops advanced, pushing the Russians into the marsh. So the Russians hid and the Germans stopped at the edge of the marsh and just stood there listening. I suppose they did not want to get their boots wet, but I am sure an officer would have ordered 20 or 30 men into the water to search the marsh. But that would have ended the story. Also, the Germans entered the barn where the Russians were hiding in the loft and did not bother to fire into the roof. At the worst some soldier would have tossed a grenade into the loft and not climbed a ladder to peer in.<br /><br />I did see some reviewers who said they cried at the end. I wonder why? You knew this small band would perish and they was nothing heart-tugging in that. | 0neg
|
I believe that war films should try to convey the terror of war, avoid idealism and respect some rudimentary military principles. Zvezda barely does the first. Zvezda being a Russian war film, I was expecting patriotism, sentimentality, beautiful poetic pictures, a lush score, Slavic cheekbones and cruel Germans. What I didn't need was the naive love non-affair, the unrealistically silly war scenes and the abuse of the syrupy soundtrack in a film which avoided carefully all historical or political references (Stalinism, Nazism, Holocaust) only to end on a passing but nonetheless insulting to our sense of history endnote about "liberating Poland". A missed opportunity as a film but not as propaganda apparently. | 0neg
|
Ain't it hilarious when an average schmo leading a pathetic life suddenly has something outrageously magical happen to him, turning his life upside down and causing him to learn a few valuable lessons along the way? That formula never gets old, does it? It's such a sure fire way to make a classic film! Just look at major hits like Liar Liar and Big!... This must have been Rob Schneider's line of thinking when he made semi-successful Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo and followed it with The Animal. Since I've already traced the plot through sarcasm, allow me to color it in more: Schneider plays a loser cop who's suddenly involved in a tragic accident but is saved through surgery... by a loopy veterinarian who loads him up with animal parts, causing him to whinny like a horse at inappropriate times, run like a cheetah, etc. This movie is slightly more likable than other Schneider-starring flicks (such as another lame same-plot follow-up The Hot Chick), but it almost feels like they want audiences to hate it by casting a reality TV star as the romantic lead (Colleen Haskell from "Survivor") and inserting a cameo by Norm MacDonald. My favorite scene... just does not exist. Sorry - nothing memorably good except the production value. I just want to end this review by saying that slight references to other movies in a movie can be okay, but when it comes to lines being delivered the exact same way ("You can DO it!"), there's a word for that - "milking." Actually, here's another word - "cheap." | 0neg
|
Marvin(Rob Schneider)does not have the ingredients to be a cop which is his lifelong dream. But his luck changes when he has a car crush(a very bad one)and is found by a doctor. The doctor has to use animal organs to rebuild him. After this moment, he starts to have wild behaviours unconsciously and becomes a best cop one could ever be. By the time, he realises the changes and his animal instincts starts to take over his human side. In the mean time, he finds a lovely girl and try to be a perfect gentleman that means he has to control himself and behave civilised. I am not a big fun of Rob Schneider. In fact, this is the his first film I have seen. However, I can easily say that he is the best person to play the loser.(See his part in Ally Mcbeal, quite funny actually).There are some good parts in the movie such as his flirting with the goat. In such movies, the biggest problem is that the script is seems to make the viewer feel less intelligent. I am sure this movie is okay to watch as long as it is not taken too seriously. But very sad to see such films doing very good in the box office. The Animal is not the worst film I have seen to date but fails to get more than *. | 0neg
|
I didn't really like this movie that much at all. It wasn't really funny and in some cases it was just downright stupid. Rob Schneider is definitely one enormously talented individual and while his acting was fine in this, it just seemed like a real waste for him to star in. I mean there were some parts that were okay and somewhat humorous in a cute kind of way but that's about it. The only thing that actually caught my attention during this whole ordeal of over the top jokes was that there were some very good looking females present and I'm not one to watch a movie solely because of that but in this case it was the only nook where even the slightest case of redemption could be found. All in all it was a couple notches below an average movie!<br /><br />Final Query:<br /><br />Theaters: So glad I didn't squander too much money on this.<br /><br />DVD Purchase: Ummm, let me think....no!<br /><br />Rental: If you have a prehistoric sense of humor then why not. | 0neg
|
I hated this movie so much I remember it vividly. It is not even funny. Any movie that relies on unfunny sex jokes and racism humor does not deserve the money it costs to make it. In the first half hour, Rob Schneider drinks a carton of rancid milk. All I could think was "he deserves it, for making such a bad movie". Don't waste your time or money on this one. | 0neg
|
I saw an interview with Rob Schneider (who plays the lead character, Marvin Mange, in this film.) He said in it that he wanted to emphasize physical comedy here so much that even if you had the volume turned off you'd be laughing at this movie. Obviously that must be the secret. I had the volume turned up. I was actually listening to this thing and thought it was a disaster, and completely unfunny - a major disappointment after Schneider's hilarious performance in "Deuce Bigalow, Male Gigolo."<br /><br />The story is stupid: Mange is a major loser who dreams of being a cop who gets filled with a bunch of animal transplants after a car accident by a mad scientist type appropriately named Dr. Wilder (Michael Caton), and as a result starts to lose control of his "animal instincts." This makes him a "supercop." He can sniff out drugs hidden in body cavities and outrun horses. Of course, he also has a nasty habit of eating people's cows and trying to seduce their goats, but surely that's a small price to pay? It just didn't do anything for me. <br /><br />The cast left much to be desired. Is there a more irritating actor in all of Hollywood than John McGinley? Here, he plays Sgt. Sisk, Mange's commander on the police force, as a repugnantly cartoonish character (much the same as his doctor character in the inexplicably popular TV series "Scrubs.") I was anxious to get a look at Colleen Haskell's first "serious" acting job (can anything in this movie be called "serious?") She, of course, gained her fame as a contestant on the first "Survivor" and she proves here what we knew from that: she's cute as a button. What she doesn't prove here is that she has any discernible talent as an actress. And what's with Ed Asner as Police Chief Wilson. I mean, how old is this guy now? He's the size of some of the cows Mange tried to eat, and he seemed out of breath the whole way through. I'm surprised he made it through the filming. There's a brief cameo at the end by Adam Sandler (who also served as Executive Producer of this.)<br /><br />Anyway, I chuckled twice: Mange playing with his squeaky toys in the police car, and the scene Schneider has with Haskell and the orangutan - the orangutan has more acting talent! So, for two chuckles - 2/10. | 0neg
|
This is a very bad movie. I laughed once or twice, and the storyline sucks! There is maybe one funny joke, it is stupid and it is boring. Through the whole short movie, I was falling asleep and wondering when it was going to end.<br /><br />No one acts human, and everyone acts stupid and ridiculous. Rob Schneider acting like an animal isn't something I would pay to see. It looked funny, but the bottom line: DON'T WASTE YOU'RE PRECIOUS TIME ON SUCH A RIDICULOUS AND STUPID MOVIE.<br /><br />I was wondering when it was going to end, even though it is a short movie. In the beginning we thought it would get better; but it gets worse. Stupid, all the way to the end. I walked out of the theater, and I would remember that movie as extremely bad forever.<br /><br />The writer and co-producer of this film is a Simpsons TV writer, but this is nothing like The Simpsons (this movie sucks!!!) | 0neg
|
NOTHING in this movie is funny. I thought the premise, giving a human the libido of a randy ram, was interesting and should provide for some laughs. WRONG! There is simply nothing funny about the movie. For example, the main character making a pass at a goat in heat in the middle of a farmer's yard is not funny, it borders on obscenity. They are toying around with bestiality in this film on one level, and it just aint funny.<br /><br />We all know that dogs will eat anything, anywhere, anytime. The main character doing this with everything, everywhere, everytime is also not funny. It becomes a cliche.<br /><br />Rob Schneider is, I guess, acceptable in the role. By this, I mean that he's not a bad actor, but with rotten material it's difficult to comment on quality. However, Coleen Haskell, the other half of the HUMAN-romantic leads (does one count the number of animals that the main character has interest in as romantic leads too?), seems embarrassed by the whole thing, as well she should be. She seems to be acting in some kind of vacuum, detached from all the other actors in the movie. <br /><br />See this film only if you wish to be bored by tasteless, dull, repetitive material. | 0neg
|
I was expecting a movie similar to Deuce Bigalow, which I enjoyed. However, this dud seemed to last forever. It's one of those flicks which enjoys the sad placement of PG-13 while not being kid appropriate. The jokes aren't just low-brow or f**t jokes, they're crude, lewd, and many acts cross the boundaries to not only bad taste but beyond legal and moral decency. Many scenes appear to have been chopped to get the PG-13 rating...too bad...it might have made a bigger splash as an R-rated film if the funny was left in. (Overstatement? Probably.) I do not recommend this movie. It is a full-on waste of time...and I'm a movie lover and ready to give just about anything a shot. At 45 minutes in, the movie felt like it should be winding down...and boy were we ready for it to. The ending is quaint but doesn't salvage the rest of this quagmire/tourist trap of a rental. 1/2 star (glad I saw it as a freebie...would have been sickened to pay hard-earned greenbacks for this tripe) | 0neg
|
Redundant, but again the case. If you enjoy the former SNL comedian and his antics (in this case, Schneider), then you should go. Basic comedy
.man's life is saved by having various animal organs transplanted into him. Unfortunately, he takes on each animal's characteristics. Former Survivor Colleen looks pretty good here, now that she doesn't have open sores on her legs, and a little makeup on her face! D | 0neg
|
Guy is a loser. Can't get girls, needs to build up, is picked on by stronger more successful guys, etc. Seen it, saw it, moved on. I'd have to say that Rob needs to move past the Adam Sandler part of his life. And get out of the Adam Sandler plots. There are two funny parts in the whole movie. I couldn't even finish the last 5 minutes. I was getting bored. "The Animal" is an alright film. I do usually enjoy Adam Sandler films that have the same plot. But this was trying too hard to impress. The jokes are very old. So, trust me. This is not a film that most people could really get into. But some did, so I'll be nice.<br /><br />3/10 | 0neg
|
I hired this movie expecting a few laughs, hopefully enough to keep me amused but I was sorely mistaken. This movie showed very minimal moments of humour and the pathetic jokes had me cringing with shame for ever hiring it... Aimed at an age group of 10-15, this movie will certainly leave viewers outside of these boundaries feeling very unsatisfied. Worth no more than 3 votes highly unrecommended for anyone not wanting to waste 2 hours of their lives. | 0neg
|
Rob Schneider is a famous comedian cause of his movements, facials and performances of "not humans". This time he is The Animal. Marvin is a loser who is trying to be a hero and one day, nobody takes a call from a man that gets attacked, so Marvin has to take this case and save the attacked man. But on his way to the crime scene, he crashes with his car and gets really damaged. He doesn't remember what happens and at the next ordinary day, his life is not same when he finds out that he has animal instincts. Of course, we got our female that our main character is trying to reach but his tryings, are useless. She is played by Collen Haskell. There are no negative characters. The negative character, is destiny if I could use this metaphor. Marvin should find out, how to become a normal human being again. By the way-his animal instincts, helps him in some situations. Schneider's performance is a so-so. The movie is so unreal that gets stupid at some moments but it is one of those movies, called mindless fun as I have written above. So watch it for the monkey style Rob Schneider but it is definitely not one of the best comedies ever or one of the best movies that Schneider appears in. He is a great comedian but this is not his best movie. | 0neg
|
I have been reading the reviews for this movie and now I wanna kill my self. I don't wanna live in a world where people find this move or Rob Schneider funny. What is wrong with these people. I'm not angry at Rob Schneider because he has the intelligence of a dead cat. I watched this film in disbelief. Who would pay money to make this?? This film is so bad that its painful. Most bad films are funny because they are crap. The Animal is just DISGUSTING!!! Watch this film and if you like please for all of man kind kill your self. We don't need you. I want to raise money to get Rob Scheider off all movies. If someone killed Rob Schneider they should be given a Nobel peace prize. | 0neg
|
And a few more "no"s on top of that. Voodoo Academy is, without a doubt, the least ambitious film of all time. What exactly is it trying to do? Tell a story? Obviously not; as has been pointed out, most of it's just barely-legal guys rubbing themselves. Could it, then, be an attempt at subversive homoeroticism? Well, maybe, if not for the fact it never ever ever goes beyond the most innocuous and nonthreatening forms of male contact. (Which is, to the delight of none, repeated about eighty thousand times.) Well, it is sort of a horror movie; is it trying to scare us? Not unless the director meant to do so through the utter tedium and vacuousness of his "work."<br /><br />Never in my life have I enjoyed a movie less. This is the most boring and unnecessary thing I've ever seen. It's like Voodoo Academy takes the genres of horror, zombie, and gay movies, puts them in a grinder, then runs them through a coffee filter--only instead of it being the kind of coffee filter that filters out coffee beans, it's the kind that takes out everything vital, edgy, or in any way interesting. The result is 74 minutes of film every bit as exciting as a glass of warm water--only without the ability to rehydrate you after the 10-day gin binge that will inevitably befall you if you watch this abomination of human effort. | 0neg
|
You can't hold too much against this knowing that it was made in four days, and I had expected it to be campy anyway. (It's not all that campy in reality. With the exception of Kevin Kalisher and Huntley Ritter, who don't take themselves seriously, the rest of the cast plays it halfway straight; Riley Smith is exceptionally bad.) The ridiculous story is actually paid attention to, which kind of shocked me; I assumed the whole purpose with these ultra-low-budget horror movies was to cater to the basest sexual fantasies and not give a damn about the story, but they use lots of words like "technological" and "physicality" in the script to get their point across. (Although it's possible that the story is important only to explain why there's so few cast members.) Nobody cares about this stupid storyline, and the only things that are interesting in the film are the mocking of cults and the soft-core homoeroticisms (which aren't all that edgy). I would have enjoyed it more if there were just some random killings for no reason. The film is grainy, with a TV-quality look and acting level. There are a few "sexy" scenes that are alright -- the boys writhing in bed in their boxers, feeling themselves up; or being tied down and making orgasmic faces while wine is poured on them -- and some of them are kinda funny. And I liked the digs at L. Ron Hubbard and the intended irony of a story about religious cultists told with intense gay overtones, but it still isn't any good. 3/10 | 0neg
|
Cheap and mind-blisteringly dull story and acting. Not a single good line, not even a line bad enough to be good, and no memorable delivery. Even the blooper reel included with the DVD showed how inept the actors were and how little fun any of them were having. The esoteric and occult basis was apathetically inauthentic, and the antagonists failed to be creepy or believable. The 'homoerotic' overtones were pointlessly tame and dissatisfying, and were limited to young boys caressing their chests while flaccid in their boxers. I'm not gay enough to appreciate it, but a little action might have at least kept me and my girlfriend awake. | 0neg
|
If you like to comment on films where the script arrive halfway the movie then this is the one. A setting and acting as in a Porn movie but nothing is happening only some groping and touching of the third kind. Which actually becomes very boring after 45 minutes of touchy feely but no action. A few of the actors I've seen in real x rated movies and there their acting then was a lot better. All the special effects are done by the great "Rondo" Whom performs all the magic whit his mind. A cult movie is written on the box. Does that mean that this film is not to be watched at all???<br /><br />Get drunk with some friends and watch this movie on new years eve ore thanks giving. | 0neg
|
This was probably the worst movie i have ever seen in my life!! It was stupid there was no plot and the special affects were ridiculous!! And i have never seen such bad acting in my life! The only good part about the movie were all the hot guys(especially Drew Fuller). I don't know what these people were thinking when they made this movie!! I didn't even want to finish the whole thing because you get to this point in the movie where the guys are all in bed touching themselves. I mean it was like some kind of sick and twisted kiddy porn! I would advise anyone who has heard of this movie and was interested in seeing it to just forget about it and find another movie to watch! I was very disappointed!! The whole movie was a complete waste of time in my opinion. | 0neg
|
i know you've read that before, on countless other films no doubt if you're reading the comments here, but voodoo academy still stands as the absolute worst film i've been able to track down. no doubt the really bad ones aren't even available to buy or watch on tv, but even so i feel it's fair to qualify that i'm not just some dumb renter who picked badly.<br /><br />i've seen two thirds of the bottom 100 ranked films here on the imdb, and i'm ticking of the remaining ones with every chance. most of those stand head and shoulders above this... excersize in absolute monotony.<br /><br />i like to rate truly bad films (as in ones with no humour even in how bad they are) by how many people you need to watch it with to make it all the way through. if you can watch it by yourself, it isn't that bad. if you can watch it with one single friend... it's bad but could be a lot worse.<br /><br />it took 5 of us to make it all the way through voodoo academy. and not even the usually fun moments of watching bad films (spotting the boom mic for example, 3 times in this one if i'm not mistaken) could take away the dry taste in my mouth. yes i'd watched it, but i'd also forced 4 of my friends to watch it with me to achieve that end.<br /><br />i hope and pray we saw the directors cut... to think that there could be a version with 20 more minutes of big eyebrowed lugs with baby oil glands rubbing their torsos just scares the hell out of me. so much of the film centers around this.<br /><br />i do applaud david decoteau for managing to lens this film in two days on a short budget, just as i applaud him for convincing people to pay him to make what is no doubt a celluloid version of some of his fetishes. but it isn't a good film. the original shop of horrors was shot in the same length of time for a comparitive amount of money (considering inflation) and was an utter gem. it's not an excuse for how bad this baby is.<br /><br />spoilers ahead...<br /><br />it's not even worth picking apart the plot holes or cliched know it all hero characters... the pacing of the film... is insane... nothing... is interesting for the length of time decoteau dedicates to the pectoral self massaging. no matter what your alignment or sex... rubbing just cannot sustain that kind of screen time.<br /><br />the acting is cheese... but not overly amatuer... i've seen a lot worse in better films... but somehow it's the semi competent delivery of some of the worst lines you'll ever hear in a film, that really grates.<br /><br />rent this if, like me, you have a fascination with the worst of the worst, and only if you're going to watch it with a group of people who are prepared to work to get through it. this is no ha ha ha the set wobbled affair. it's an endurance test you probably want to skip.<br /><br />i'm sure there is worse... but i wouldn't be surprised if it has decoteau's name on it. | 0neg
|
I have seen a lot of bad films. Most of the time I can enjoy a crappy horror film for what it is. But this really takes badness to new extremes.<br /><br />It is bland, the plot for what it is never really goes anywhere and takes its time over it. There are no shocks, no horror, no suspense, just a load of guys rubbing themselves for an hour and a half and then a quick finish.<br /><br />A blight on the crappy horror genre, avoid at all costs.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
"Voodoo Academy" features an "Academy" like no other, one that houses only six male students in one bedroom. These teenage guys are instructed in religion by a sinister young priest, who enjoys tormenting and comforting them simultaneously. The sole administrator of this "Academy" is a young and seductive headmistress, and she retains her handsome charges on a short leash, so to speak.<br /><br />Sexual overtones abound, and the director obviously has high regard for young male bodies. These young actors occasionally strip down to their designer underwear to sneak about the "Academy," and their sexuality is the entire focus of the movie. If you're not interested in the male form -- stay away!<br /><br />Burdened by weak and awkward dialogue, this low-budget exploitation piece just stumbles along with a few laughable special effects tossed in between the yawns. The mood is claustrophobic, with tediously long takes, a handful of cheap sets and few costume changes. These visual elements come interspersed with seemingly unending sequences of banal dialogue, intended as character and plot development. It gives one the feeling it was filmed in three days... | 0neg
|
This is one of those movies that should have been way better than it turned out to be. I dread to think what the Blockbuster-approved edit must have looked like, because the director's cut on DVD was a bore of the epic proportions. Naturally, you don't expect it to be "The Godfather", but an acting class or two might have come in handy.<br /><br />Also, there were so many cute guys in this movie, but they were woefully under-exploited. I like watching a bevy of hotties writhe around in their BVDs as much as the next guy, but even I have a right to expect a little more. It wasn't a total loss, though; at least we got a peek a Drew Fuller's (covered) junk and truly upsetting haircut. And there's Huntley Ritter looking even cuter than he did in "Bring It On" (and acting about as well). There's always a silver lining, kids. You just have to look really hard for it. And occasionally, you have to make use of your pause button. | 0neg
|
This movie is AWFUL! I don't even know where to begin, I'm speechless I can't even describe how awful this is. The blood is flourescent first of all, and the acting is AWFUL! The only good part was the biker chick that saves the day. This movie was rediculous, I don't see how it could even get a vote of 1 its so bad. It looks like it was made by highschool students. | 0neg
|
I saw the trailer to this film and it looked great, so I went out and bought it. What a mistake, the acting is a shambles, the special effects (if you could call them that), look like something that wouldn't be out of place at a school play. Some of the characters are so stupid in this film you will cringe the minute they are on the screen, which unfortunately is all to often. As for a story, forget it. This is a warning, don't waste any money at all on this film it has to be one of the worst things I have ever seen. If, for some reason, you like this film watch Troll 2, you will probably enjoy that as well. | 0neg
|
I thought that this movie was pretty lame. If you're looking for cheesey, you may like this. I, myself, don't mind a fair amount of cheese, but this was ridiculous. The progression of the movie bored me and the storyline was very weak.<br /><br />The only thing entertaining about this movie was the day-glo zombies, but even that isn't reason enough to see this flick. | 0neg
|
Worst movie I have seen since Gingerale Afternoon. I suppose that this is a horror/comedy. I pretty much predicted every scene in this movie. The special-effects were not so special. I believe that I could come up with as good of effects from what I have lying around the house. I wish I could have something good to say about this movie, but I am afraid that I don't. Even Coolio should be ashamed of appearing in such a turkey. I do, after a little thought, have one thing good to say about this movie - it ended. | 0neg
|
This film is absolutely horrific. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. The story does nearly not exist, the characters are full of stereotypes and the Special-FX only make you laugh. The only remarkable thing about this movie is the guest appearance of the Rapper Coolio as some kind of police officer.<br /><br />If this film was supposed to be a comedy I didn't quite get the point. If you want to watch this movie: please get yourself drunk first and then prepare for some good laughs...especially when the first Special-FX appear on the screen.<br /><br />But if you like trash movies made on the cheap: this film is a must-see for you. | 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits