text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
......this film is pretty awful, the only thing stopping me from giving it a rating of 1 was the fact that I unfortunately have seen worse.<br /><br />The jungle music, juttering demons, and fluorescent UV style blood/teeth/eyes give it that "awful" look, and the script is dire.....this film is more like a test to see how long you can last before giving up on it. It's also predictable but not in a good way. Nothing this film does is in a good way. I watched it 10 minutes ago and thought I would rant a bit so there you are. (oh and the acting doesn't let the film down, it's also terrible) | 0neg
|
I just watched The Convent for the second time. I had enjoyed it previously and figured it would make for a good drunken Friday night film, some gore, some style, bit of humour and suchlike. I was saddened to find that I could no longer appreciate it much. It seemed like someone had set out to revisit cheeseball epics like Night of the Demons for a modern audience but lost the things that made the original worthwhile. For the record I'm not even a huge fan of Night of the Demons, but there were some things I really dug about it. The Convent does the cheese but the not the goodness so much. Apart from the main girl (likeable performance from Joanna Canton), the goth girl and a sweet cameo from Adrienne Barbeau pretty much all the characters were excruciatingly unlikeable, festering at the absolute lowest levels of moronic, offensive jockhood. The film is then gravely hampered by the complete lack of gratuitous nudity which means that, given the awful dialogue, it is difficult to watch the characters and harder to appreciate the good points of the film. The evil nuns are original in design and get lots of good scenes, though not scary their certainly kinda cool, and the film also fields a fair amount of neat gore. Towards the end, when Adrienne Barbeau is on the scene the film becomes quite entertaining cause all the obnoxious people are dead and its an evil nun bashing frenzy. The stylised direction also occasionally yields good results, although sometimes the camera just moves too fast. All in all, this was a film where for me the shining good points just can't make up for the things I hated. Those more fond of this kind of film may well enjoy it a lot more, but for me it wasn't a good time. | 0neg
|
When I tell people that I review movies as a hobby, the first thing they say is "What do you think of such-and-such movie?" There are a couple of problems here. Firstly, there is the probable chance that I've not seen it and thus, I ruin my reputation. Secondly, I could trash the movie in question without realising that it's actually their favourite. Lastly, I could be given DVDs to watch so they can judge my opinion. Thus, I find myself sat before "The Convent" which is the sort of film I would ignore completely given the choice but unable to avoid here. More's the pity because this frankly dreadful "horror" is about as scary as a box of kittens.<br /><br />Following well-worn clichés, "The Convent" focuses on a bunch of American high school students on a trip to an abandoned convent on a mission to get stoned, laid and mildly spooked. But you'll never guess what happens next? A group of cannibalistic demonic nuns emerge from the cobwebs who proceed to pick the kids off one by one in classic horror movie tradition. Will any of them survive and more importantly, haven't you got better things to worry about? <br /><br />The only thing that saves "The Convent" from being a total waste of time is the fact that nobody is really taking this tosh seriously with the exception of Coolio's bizarre cameo as a hyperactive cop with an itchy trigger finger. It's far too amusing to be properly frightening - the zombie cheerleader who makes chipmunk noises for no reason, the day-glo paint jobs that appears when you become a zombie - but what really kills it as a horror is the fact that you can instantly tell when someone is going to jump out and get messily murdered. But even if they were trying, I still doubt that it would work - demonic nuns wearing the sort of make-up you'd see in the "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" TV show aren't really that scary. The scariest thing about this movie really is that over 10% of voters gave this a maximum score. I mean, I know it's funny but I hardly split my sides. To be honest, I've had more fun in a dentist.<br /><br />"The Convent" isn't really a horror movie as such. It's more of a comedy horror like "Scary Movie" or "Shaun Of The Dead" but you're laughing at it instead of with it. I honestly can't recommend this to anybody except the family of the cast and crew but even then, I doubt very much they'd enjoy it. I don't enjoy the "so bad that it's good" genre - I personally feel that if the film-makers can't be bothered to salvage a turkey then I shouldn't bust a gut trying to watch it. Yes, it's a bad film and yes, they really should have gone home and done something more constructive. A Rubik's cube, for example. The DVD box has two price stickers - one for £4.99 and a reduced price of £3. But it was sold for £1 and that should tell you everything you need to know about this poxy, cheap, awesomely bad flick. Sorry if you do like it but "The Convent" really is a pile of unholy crap. | 0neg
|
In fact, these young people were so distasteful that I couldn't wait for all of 'em to get slaughtered, and that includes Clarissa (Joanna Canton) since I considered her the most annoying of the bunch.<br /><br />But I knew it was gonna be a mess from the opening minutes when a teen Christine opened fired on the priest and the nuns with the Leslie Gore music playing in the background. It had nowhere to go but down.<br /><br />Even the prosthetics looked fake and the "blood" looked suspiciously like Hawaiian Punch, although later on it took on red day-glo look to match the silly halloween makeup they were all wearing. I'm sure all the GOTH morons out there will appreciate this bullsh-t since it'll appeal to that bunch. It sure didn't appeal to me. Blah...<br /><br />And not even my favorite horror babe Adrienne Barbeau can save this stupid teen horror flick from itself. She still looks hot, though. I'm glad she takes care of herself since we don't get to see too much of her nowadays.<br /><br />However, it is a step up from Dante Tomaselli's meandering HORROR (2002) in that it has a somewhat coherent plot, so I'll give it that much. That and the little Boston terrier named Boozer also brings it up a notch. I like what Boozer does to Clarissa in the end. It was the only good scene in an otherwise silly film.<br /><br />Lion's Gate Films sure must have been desperate when they picked this one up.<br /><br />2 out of 10 | 0neg
|
This film wasn't programmed in Italian cinemas,I have seen it at a manifestation called "fantafestival".I find it terrible because some scenes seems like music videos chaotic and dark, the use of fluorescent colors is ridicule and there's no suspence in the film. Music is completely out of the story and I don't have words to describe the visual effects.If you look at the first scene the film seems to be interesting, but a few minutes later it becomes busy.The story is interesting but the development needs a complete review. | 0neg
|
This movie is one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. From the very first scene, i knew it would be a smash crash. It starts with a seemingly bad girl killing a bunch of nuns in a mission. As it turns out, the people in it were possessed by some random zombies. Well, some years later, some college kids are pulling some pledge prank. Horrible acting goes from pledge to the head jock. Things like the jock yelling at him to do stuff in quite a non-chalonte manner, with pledge over reacting and over-doing the whole "eager to be popular role" What really took the cake with this one is the final battle. Absolutely HORRIBLE special effects with the guns. For example, guns making a noise with no muzzle flash, and vice-versa. this is accompanied by stop-animation zombies (why they move in stop motion is a mystery), cheesy music, and about 40 guns that come out of nowhere.<br /><br />Overall, this movie is crap. Just like so many others you can rent for 50 cents at your nearest low brow movie rental place. | 0neg
|
My friend's mom used to work at a video store and got to preview movies before they came out, so when she brought home The Convent, a horror movie, i couldn't wait to watch it. Given that it's supposed to be scary but is actually downright hilarious, I can say that in some weird way, I like this movie. <br /><br />yes, the acting is bad, and yes, it's the cheapest movie i've ever seen, but it's so damn funny! "WHAT, ARE YOU SMOKING CA-RACK?!" i didn't know this movie even was ever released... i figured it was too bad... <br /><br />Yeah, so... overall the movie is pretty bad (you gotta admit that much at least) but I promise you, you will get a good laugh out of it.<br /><br />*this movie kinda sucks but it's good for a laugh... especially that guy that holds the 'dagger of despair'.. THE DAGGER OF DESPAAAAAAIR! | 0neg
|
This is arguably the worst film I have ever seen, and I have quite an appetite for awful (and good) movies. It could (just) have managed a kind of adolescent humour if it had been consistently tongue-in-cheek --à la ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW, which was really very funny. Other movies, like PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE, manage to be funny while (apparently) trying to be serious. As to the acting, it looks like they rounded up brain-dead teenagers and asked them to ad-lib the whole production. Compared to them, Tom Cruise looks like Alec Guinness. There was one decent interpretation -- that of the older ghoul-busting broad on the motorcycle. | 0neg
|
What more can I say? The acting was, almost without exception, amateurish. The directing and continuity were pitiful. The sceenplay was predictable down to the very last scene and the dialog tedious. One of the features on the DVD was labeled "Gag Reel" but that could have been a description of a viewer's reaction to most of the movie.<br /><br />One of the most amusing things was in the director's comments on the DVD. He said, with a straight face, that he had set out to make a movie with high production values and a name cast - and that he had succeeded. With delusions like that it's easy to understand how the movie turned out as it did.<br /><br />Perhaps the most disappointing aspect was the monster. The darkwolf suit was a modified ape suit (per the 'making of' feature on the DVD) and rather looked it. The mask and claws were little better than off the shelf jobs from any costume store. The cgi effects were painfully obvious and of quality similar to an inexpensive video game. | 0neg
|
This is a very cheaply made werewolf flick. The video is dark and poorly lit. The audio is uneven and poorly recorded and mixed. The script is cliche ridden junk with the usual characters like the tough detective who shoots werewolves with his silver handgun! [filled of course with silver bullets]. The acting is as wooden as the characters. The FX are non-existent,lots of extreme close-ups of werewolf jaws and biting. the only thing that is shown is lots of soft-core T&A. Instead of dropping $30 for this tripe check out a really great recent werewolf pic: "Dog Soldiers" with Sean Pertwee. | 0neg
|
Except for the better than average acting skills of the two leads, this movie is really, really bad. The cheap production values don't help. Of course, you wouldn't really notice that the production values are cheap if they didn't keep trying to convince you they HAD a production values to begin with. Even for a B-movie genre freak like myself, this movie really sucks. | 0neg
|
A documentarist, like any filmmaker, must convey a compelling story. Will Pascoe fails utterly in this effort, cobbling together uninspired snippets of Chomsky's wisdom from a visit to McMaster University in Hamilton. The footage is shot amateurishly and in video. Pascoe's only effort at cohering the fragments into a whole is by periodically throwing a vague title on the screen: "9-11," "Activism," "Truth."<br /><br />Lame.<br /><br />Compare this with documentaries like "The Corporation" or "The Fog of War" which create a narrative drawing material from interviews, stock footage, and filmed footage. In the end each delivers a poignant and insightful message deftly and intelligently.<br /><br />The only saving graces of the film are Chomsky's nonchalantly delivered upendings of historical dogma, and the fact that the running time is only 74 minutes.<br /><br />One of the more interesting passages was Chomsky's recounting of his experience with National Public Radio. He describes the conservative media as more accommodating to dissenting views, while NPR's liberal dogma strait-jackets its interviewees and dramatically limits its permitted messages. Yet another media outlet to be skeptical of.<br /><br />This documentary is for Noam Chomsky completists only. | 0neg
|
First off, I agree with quite a bit that escapes Mr. Chomsky's mouth. His matter-of-fact delivery of interesting counterpoint is what makes the man a hit on the university campus circus. He comes across likable, unassuming, pragmatic. He doesn't cater to the current political style (obnoxious bi-partisanship) and he sets his sights on the far left as well as the far right, chastising both, and for good reason.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the film itself is a dud. In fact, I would not even call this a documentary but rather just a collection of speeches. Watching "Rebel Without a Pause" is no different from watching a speaker on a 3am taped segment on CSPAN. There are no camera movements, no edits, no stylistic touches. There is no story, no narrative.<br /><br />Technically speaking, the production is strictly amateurish. Audio is terrible and inconsistent; sometimes we cannot hear Noam speak, other times we cannot hear the questions that are being posited by those in attendance. When Noam is speaking rarely are we allowed to see the reactions of the audience except when we are given a quick shot of his wife who apparently attends every one of his speeches and beams with pride every time we see her.<br /><br />I cannot recommend this film and would say that you're probably better off checking out his taped speeches on cassette or CD to listen to in the car.<br /><br />4 out of 10 stars...and I'm in a generous mood today. | 0neg
|
Despite having known people who are either great fans of Noam Chomsky, or think he's a tired relic from the 1960s, I really had no opinion of the man, save that I knew he gained fame as a linguist, although I could not elucidate any of his theories, and that he was a liberal socialist with Marxist leanings. So, stumbling across the DVD of the 2003 documentary Noam Chomsky: Rebel Without A Pause, in a used video store, a film which followed him on a 2002 book tour for his book 9-11, I decided to get it, just so I could have a little bit of knowledge about the man the next time a person, pro or con, spoke of him. While glad I got the film, my initial reaction to this dull and ill edited hagiography was, so what's all the fuss about?<br /><br />For a man with so many degrees, lauded as 'the most important intellectual alive', by the New York Times, according to the DVD's case, there sure was not a lot there, intellectually speaking. I know I would chew him up and spit him out in a debate, and I wouldn't even want to watch what a William F. Buckley could do to him. Granted, the whole film was seemingly about Chomsky seeing conspiracies everywhere, and having glazed eyed coeds nod in bewildering approval of the most inane and outrageous things he'd say, rather than being on linguistics, so maybe that's the reason he came off so badly. But, again, if he is a linguist, and tops in his field, why in the world would anyone care what he has to say on anything outside his field of expertise?
. Even worse are his acolytes, who seem to further insulate the man from reality, by fostering delusions that Chomsky is a target for Zionist assassins. What little I knew of Chomsky before watching this film, this much I knew: he was generally considered a has been, and pretty much irrelevant intellectually, since the fall of the Soviet Empire. The film is so poorly structured, and without a narrative thread, that it's difficult to separate all of the jumble. His wife, Carol, as example, apparently gave one interview, which was chopped up and dropped wherever in the film. She seems a nice enough woman, but wholly out of her element answering anything but the most basic questions about their life. The lone interesting thing she says is that 9/11 was a great thing for the Chomskys, for he has reaped a great deal of money in speaking fees since then.<br /><br />Not surprisingly, this sort of film gives almost no biographical background. It's assumed that all viewers must know all the plaudits this 'great man' bears. Chomsky is rarely interviewed one on one. Stylistically, there are no camera movements, no interesting edits, nor any signature touches, and most of the film is disjunct rambles by Chomsky, videotaped huzzahs of Chomsky declaiming on this or that, and slack-jawed and awed students looking at him as if he were immaterial, that is when dimwitted coeds are not asking barely audible and ridiculously simplistic questions to him. This is really poor film-making by director and editor Will Pascoe, who in the DVD's Filmmaker Statement, shows he's yet another uncritical acolyte of Chomsky's. Other than that, one of the surest signs that this is not an objective documentary, but mere agitprop, and a vanity piece of agitprop, at that, is that not a single time is Chomsky shown struggling with an answer. He seems to be a font of knowledge that has no bounds.<br /><br />Given that much of this dreck was filmed during Chomsky's lectures at McMaster University, in Ontario, Canada, prior to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, much of what Chomsky says seems as remote as things from the Vietnam War era. Yes, he makes some good points, here and there, on American media complicity before the war, but he follows them up with sheer lunacy, for he seems to not realize that most conspiracies are ad hoc, and not fully plotted out cabals. As example, he claims that the advertising industry is a cabal that mercilessly controls the populace, but says not a word about the zombied populace that lets itself be so controlled. Similarly, he claims Trilateralists run the world and that people's fear of crime is yet another cabal's result. Of course, that claim so fully explains away rape crisis centers, and all that wasted time and money district attorneys' offices consume. He also makes the absurd claim that Cuba has been the victim of terrorism for decades, when Castro and company were great sponsors of it, in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, until the Soviet Union fell. I can only guess that the UFO conspiracists are just waiting for Chomsky to proclaim that gray aliens have set up species-mixing impregnation centers up in Idaho.<br /><br />In his simpleminded world without grays, Chomsky is frighteningly as dense as the members of Bushco, whom he reviles, are; even more so since they lay no claim to being intellectuals. In short, Chomsky is a man living in the past, in over his head on most issues, and out of his depth intellectually. Near this film's end he warns, 'Be cautious when you hear about intellectuals being fighters for justice,' yet one can only laugh, as the man seemingly has never met a revolutionary person nor idea that he didn't like, no matter how barbarous their crimes, and anti-intellectual their posit. Please, pause before you waste your time and money on this silly, and already irrelevant, DVD. | 0neg
|
Watch the 1936 version. As personally annoying I find Charles Boyer's voice, he's more of a match to pay cosmopolitan, depressed Rudolf--I mean Omar Sharif tries but, no--too cute and vibrant. Catherine Denueve (sp) besides being too old looks nothing like Marie--nothing! She looks too sophisticated to even think of dying for love of this man in such a fashion.<br /><br />The only actor in the entire movie who conveys the role they're playing is Ava Gardner whose appearance as Empress Elisabeth on the screen is fittingly brief (and look up pictures of the empress there's more than a passing resemblance) as historically, Empress Elisabeth wasn't involved that much in Rudolf's life. | 0neg
|
As good an advert for republicanism as you're ever likely to see,"Mayerling"is an everyday story of royal folk in late nineteenth century Austria.Set during one of Europe's seemingly incessant internal turmoils it concerns itself with the Emperor Franz Joseph (Mr James Mason),his rebellious son,the Crown Prince Rudolf (Mr Omar Sharif)the Empress(Miss Ava Gardner) and various mistresses,secret policemen,spies,extravagantly-uniformed popinjays,gypsies,dancers,wives, soldiers,swans,horses and the bizarre inbred web of European royalty at the time of Franz Joseph's Austro-Hungarian Empire. Filmed in what the old movie posters used to call "A Riot of Color" it resembles nothing more than an expensively-dressed but intellectually-challenged production of "The Student Prince" .Mr James Mason,wearing a very natty little white number,utilises his all-purpose mittel-European accent whenever he remembers.I am a great admirer of his and I sincerely hope the remuneration was comensurate with the distaste he clearly felt for the character he was playing. Mr Omar Sharif,who built a career largely founded on looking directly at the camera with his big brown eyes and looking soulful,gives a stupefyingly monotonous performance as his son the Crown Prince.He is utterly unconvincing as a man who -in the movie at least-cut a swathe through the distaff side of the Austrian aristocracy.With his well-buttered locks firmly in place he preens and poses in ever more unlikely uniforms.As a rebel he talks the talk but conspicuously fails to walk the walk,leaving a bottom button undone on one of his tunics is about as far as his defiance goes.Unhappily married,he falls in love with a commoner."Forbidden Love" is one of the movie's come-ons.As she is played by the most uncommon Miss Catherine Deneuve he is scarcely pushing the envelope there.Miss Deneuve has a profile to die for and we see rather a lot of it,particularly in the sequence set at the ballet. Now I love ballet as much as the next man,but this sequence does seem to go on for an excessive amount of time,a more cynical critic might consider it to be "padding". Rudolf's mother,the Empress is played by Miss Ava Gardner.She gives the part some good old American oooomph,making her a bit like "Auntie Mame",but it's done with undeniable style.Rudolf is certainly very fond of his mother - I'll put it no more strongly than that. The only performance worth watching is that of Mr James Robertson Justice as Sir Lancelot Spratt - sorry,Edward,Prince of Wales.He is so wonderfully unconcerned about everything going on around him it's a joy to behold.I waited vainly for him to ask Rudolf the immortal question "What's the bleeding time?". I am not qualified to dispute "Mayerling" 's historical accuracy,but,in my opinion,everything else about it is risible. It is a Ruritanian Opera Buffa without the tunes to send you home from the theatre whistling. | 0neg
|
I'm not sure what Diane Silver was thinking when she was making this movie, but it obviously had nothing to do with Richard Wright's novel, which the movie is based on.<br /><br />We read the novel this past summer for AP English 12, and just watched the film. During periodic note-taking and checking of the clock, I contemplated the chances of being struck by lightning. Of course, the sky was completely clear, and I was forced to watch the rest of the movie... and then write a 5-paragraph essay on it.<br /><br />Wright's novel discussed very real themes, of the mind of a killer and the psychology behind it. Silver's movie turned a murderer into a victim, which is NOT what Wright wanted (see: "How Bigger was Born" 454).<br /><br />I'm going to make this short and sweet: if you want to leave your consciousness, in Raphael Lambert's words, unsullied, skip the movie and read the book. The 1986 adaptation is not thought-provoking material.<br /><br />... ::sigh:: Now I have to write the essay. | 0neg
|
Of all the movies I've seen, this one rates almost at the bottom (Haunted Mansion, Nothing but Trouble and a few others keep it from reaching rock bottom.) It is hasty, the story is shaky and the events depicted are poorly acted. Of course we have to lay some of this at the book writer's door. The book the movie was filmed after is outrageously ponderous, and illogical. Oprah gives a palatable appearance as "Bigger's" mom, but is not nearly at her potential. Other famous performers also seem to be at their worst. The plot which centers around an African American who decided to take a job as a chauffeur. In driving the family daughter to a communist dinner he becomes acquainted. One thing leads to another and the girl gets drunk. Now the family he's working for are not against blacks, but he thinks they are. So when he comes home he puts her to bed, but she begins caterwauling. The blind mother (yes) hears this, so Bigger tries to silence her, but instead smothers her. Now fearing he's really in trouble for killing a white girl he does what any logical thinking man would do--he shoves her into the coal furnace. So investigators are carrying out a missing person case and lo they check the furnace (the idiot didn't have the foresight to get rid of the ashes. He is then arrested and the last hour or so are obnoxious segments from the courtroom. If your desperate for a bad movie, this one could do the job, but if you seriously want to learn about culture issues in th 40's and 50's or see a good drama, there are a lot better options. Avoid this. | 0neg
|
Hey look, deal with it, there are much better portrayals of the hardship of black America than this. Although I think this story is weak, my criticism is focused on the poor execution of the story, which I have mentioned, blows.<br /><br />This was made in the mid-80's and is horrible in the music/score department. It's funny to see Oprah as a latter-day crack-whore type.<br /><br />The scene where Bigger stuffs Elizabeth McGovern into the incinerator. Pure classic cinema. First off, I don't care how drunk you are, you will react to 1200F degree flame (no matter how bad your acting). But they really milked that scene...it was comical. I'll tell you what though, I had great satisfaction in seeing Elizabeth McGovern burn in a faux death; she annoys me. | 0neg
|
I generally don't give worry much about violence in films, or a vast amount of philosophy, symbolism or psychology. All this is very well with me and the film brings a lot of the above to us. There is beautiful pictures especially of the lake and the nature, a good setting of characters, a good direction. This film could be voted for as a good film. However, it is spoiled for two reasons and both of these reasons in relation make this film simply disgusting.<br /><br />First of all there is violence used against living creatures to make this film. Not movie violence, I am talking about REAL violence. This violence alone maybe could be justified if not and thats reason number two; the message of the film was not mere introspection about the directors twisted relation towards women. Not that we all don't have some real twists with women.(respectively men). But the conclusion of the film ruins it all. <br /><br />*spoiler* Our "heroine" finally dies, (by here own hand if I remember correctly I saw this film years ago and it enraged me, now the guy is out with a new film witch I am certainly not going to watch)and is now even more clearly depicted as some kind of natural demon, nature growing over her, in particular her sex.. Of course it is the director who "kills" the women heroine. Women have to die, especially if men are attracted by their sexuality. That seems to be the final conclusion.**end spoiler*<br /><br />Well, well all that possibly would be fine with me if the director would have kept his view to himself. But to use big pictures, artsy directions cruelty to living creatures, just to say men can be frightened of women, and men are cruel to women. Thats just not enough. I knew when I saw this film it would achieve good critics for the "philosophical, eastern and artistic" and whatever approach. But to me this film is just totally marred. | 0neg
|
Is this the same Kim Ki Duk who directed the poignant, life-spanning testimonial of "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring"? The same Kim Ki Duk who directed the exquisite, nearly silent, heartbreaking longing of "3 Iron"? The same Kim Ki Duk who dazzled us with the staggering tragedy of "The Coast Guard" and made us squirm about the ugliness of nonchalant teenage prostitution before returning to his almost patented nature motif to allow us all (characters and viewers alike) to experience redemption in "Samaritan Girl"? I just cannot seem to find him in this film.<br /><br />Oh, sure, Kim's nature motif is still present. The film takes place entirely on a lake surrounded by mountains and on fishing floats resting placidly on the surface of calm waters. Yes, it's Kim Ki Duk, all right. Kim even describes the film as "beautiful" in an interview included in the DVD's special features. But I'm not sure anymore what that means after viewing this putrescent presentation.<br /><br />What is beautiful about angry, potty-mouthed prostitutes, lustful, violent and potty-mouthed fishermen, a covetous mute merchant, explicit animal torture, sequences of self-mutilation and a pace that swings nauseatingly between bestial carnality and mindless brutality? These are the only elements of humanity that present themselves in this utterly confounding and ultimately pointless film. If it is based on a fable or intended as a parable or is meant to be symbolic of something greater, this reviewer is unfamiliar with the source material. It has been favorably compared to "Audition" by Japanese director Takashi Miike (much to Kim's satisfaction), but aside from some astonishingly good performances, especially given what they had to work with, by lead actors Seo Jung and Kim Yoo Suk, I find little reason to recommend this film. I have not seen "Audition," but I doubt it would alter in any way my view of "The Isle." Its violence is pornographic and senselessly sadistic. Its sex is not pornographic, but passionless and masochistic. Characters behave on irritating impulse because there is no plot. Its point is either non-existent or, I will admit, lost amidst Korean cultural quirks that I fail to understand.<br /><br />The only beauty is in the cinematography, which is classic Kim: fog-shrouded boats lapping slowly across a serene lake, mountainous terrain dominating the background, and an imaginative and playful use of color. At times it seems as if viewers are locked in a big Kim Ki Duk romper room. Some touches, like the mysterious and seductive mute merchant played by Jung and the pleasantly odd use of motorbikes, are intriguing. But as a film, this effort is downright confusing and, in the end, offensive to the senses, not necessarily to sensibilities. One hopes that Kim will leave this kind of film-making in the trash heap of his past, for we know he is capable of so much more. | 0neg
|
I'll say this much--This director is all about RAW images...things most of us are not ready to confront head-on. Images of sex, suicide, murder, and people "relieving themselves" are constantly bombarding the viewer, which makes me wonder if the director was trying to communicate the concept of relief or release. Although I don't think that I could ever see this movie again, I will say that the director does have a good eye. There were some really nice shots and "picture moments" in the film (the fans, the wire fish in their hair), but the story left me needing more (strictly in the since that we were left asking ourselves "what the heck did we just see?").<br /><br />Note: If you have a tendency to gag or vomit easily...don't see this film. | 0neg
|
I really can't understand how could someone give this disgusting film more than 1 star... How can you like such a retarded film, where all the animal abuse scenes are real? I don't even want to imagine the excruciating pain those innocent and defenseless living beings felt in those horrific moments... Jesus... What kind of ''human'' would torture them like that for no reason, or just for money? I tell you, that director is either mentally retarded, or he's just a monster with a ''heart'' of stone. Or both. He truly deserves to get his hands cut off and burn alive.<br /><br />It contains various horribly barbaric scenes that may cause shock, especially to sensitive persons and children: a real frog is skinned alive, fish are sadistically mutilated and thrown back into the water, a dog is beaten, birds are thrown into the water...<br /><br />This movie is more than awful; it has to be the worst and most retarded film ever made, along with another one, called ''Cannibal Holocaust'' or something like that. I'll never watch or buy any film directed by this heartless monster. No one should waste their time watching it, especially when there are a lot of TRULY great movies out there, in which all the animal abuse scenes are staged.<br /><br />Fortunately, only a few people liked this - which is natural, since it's the worst film ever -, so it wasn't successful. I hope this will make the retarded director realize that such unjustified barbaric acts of extreme cruelty and violence to REAL animals will NEVER be praised, and that he will stage all the animal abuse scenes in his following films. I truly believe that everyone receives but what they give! There will be a day when all the retarded and cruel ''humans'' will feel the same pain they once inflicted to others.<br /><br />This, however, is probably my only ''negative'' review. I usually don't comment on a movie if I dislike it, but this time I just couldn't shut up. I had to speak the truth, because animal abuse must stop! | 0neg
|
You know a movie is bad when the highlight of it is being able to see a brief moment of "Jeopardy!".<br /><br />The saddest thing about White Men Can't Jump is that it had tremendous potential. For several years, I lived in area quite like that portrayed in this film; racial tensions were high, and basketball meant everything to everyone. A film about the members of this "basketball culture" could have been very interesting, but the mediocre acting and poor script in White Men Can't Job left something to be desired.<br /><br />The movie's sequence of events is cyclical. First, Billy either wins or loses money by playing a game of basketball. He then returns to his home and lounges around with his girlfriend; and the process is repeated. Most stories build up to a climax of some kind, but the "climax" I saw was just another sequence in this repetition (this case being "Billy either wins or loses money by playing a game of basketball").<br /><br />In order for a plot to develop, some dilemma must be resolved; and this dilemma must be interesting if the film is going to be interesting as well. Apparently the writers of White Men Can't Jump forgot this rule, as the plot can be summarized as "Billy needs to pay the bills." I appreciated the change of pace from other formulaic sports movies, but -- I'm sorry -- this was just plain awful. I could have cared less if Billy got the money to pay the rent for his apartment.<br /><br />Despite all this, White Men Can't Jump is a successful film. Apparently some adamant sports fans will dismiss terrible writing for a few scenes with a basketball in them. Others, I'm sure, were lured by the big names playing the leading roles. This leaves me to wonder, if the cast was replaced entirely with previously unknown actors, and the basketball theme was replaced with lacrosse, would anyone have bothered watching this movie? I really don't think so.<br /><br />I'll give this movie two stars out of ten; the extra star is for the "Jeopardy!" scene, which kept me awake for a few minutes. Thanks, Trebek. | 0neg
|
Woody Harrelson and Wesley Snipes team up as hustlers on the basketball court. Okay, that sounds all right there. It leaves lots of room for good comedy and a good story. But no such event took place in the many following boring minutes of this pathetic attempt of a film. This movie became redundant, retarded, and ridiculous after the first twenty seconds had gone by. Woody Harrelson played one of my favorite t.v. characters, Woody from Cheers, and I was looking forward to seeing him in this movie. But after seeing his " acting performance " I have come to the conclusion that he should stay playing dumb country hicks who bartend. His acting was as dull and poor as the movie. Another actor in this unreal film was Rosie Perez. I have liked movies with Perez before, but I have decided that the reason I have enjoyed other works in her career was that she was not a main character and didn't have that many speaking lines ( Do the Right Thing ). But now in White Men Can't Jump she was made a central character with many lines, thus meaning that the audience has to put up with her incredibly annoying and whining voice. So after seeing this film ( term used loosely ) and hearing Rosie Perez for much more than appreciated I can now say that I'm a white man and I'm getting ready to jump . . . off a twenty story apartment building. | 0neg
|
This was a popular movie probably because of the humor in it, the fast-moving story, an underdog character who shuts up all the loudmouths, etc. Funny thing is, you probably couldn't make a movie with this title if you substituted anybody but "white" as anything else would be deemed racist by the PC police. <br /><br />Nonetheless, Woody Harrleson as the white guy who turns out to be as good if not better than any of the black basketball players, is interesting as is his main counterpart Wesley Snipes.<br /><br />Snipes had a lot of funny put-down lines, providing much of the humor. The bad part of the film - which doesn't bother a lot of people - is the extreme profanity in here and the sleaziness of all the characters. That includes Woody's girlfriend, played by Rosie Perez. There are no really clean, nice people in this movie. For that reason, I can't honestly recommend the film, at least not to friends or those who are offended by a lotof profanity | 0neg
|
Spooks is enjoyable trash, featuring some well directed sequences, ridiculous plots and dialogue, and some third rate acting.<br /><br />Many have described this is a UK version of "24", and one can see the similarities. <br /><br />The American version shares the weak silly plots, but the execution is so much slicker, sexier and I suspect, expensive.<br /><br />Some people describe weak comedy as "gentle comedy". <br /><br />This is gentle spy story hour, the exact opposite of anything created by John Le Carre.<br /><br />Give me Smiley any day. | 0neg
|
This woman who works as an intern for a photographer goes home and takes a bath where she discovers this hole in the ceiling. So she goes to find out that her neighbor above her is a photographer. This movie could have had a great plot but then the plot drains of any hope. The problem I had with this movie is that every ten seconds, someone is snorting heroin. If they took out the scenes where someone snorts heroin, then this would be a pretty good movie. Every time I thought that a scene was going somewhere, someone inhaled the white powder. It was really lame to have that much drug use in one movie. It pulled attention from the main plot and a great story about a photographer. The lesbian stuff didn't bother me. I was looking for a movie about art. I found a movie about drug use. | 0neg
|
One previous reviewer called this film "pure visual joy" I am wondering if s/he saw the same film that I did. "High Art" had to have the most relentlessly depressing interiors since "Seven". One can almost forgive Sheedy and Mitchell for the cliché of going to a B&B for their First Time. Of course, before they do that, one has to watch opium-den parties inhabited by people who are not apparently gainfully employed but can somehow support a flourishing drug habit. Not to mention the icy stares from those familiar movie types, the Girlfriend/Boyfriend At Start, who are well aware they're going to be thrown over sometime in the next 100 minutes or so. The movie also states that the Sheedy character has retired from professional photography for ten years now. What did she do, retire at age twenty? | 0neg
|
I was never so bored in my life. Hours of pretentious, self-obsessed heroin-addicted basket cases lounging around whining about their problems. It's like watching lizards molt. Even the sex scenes will induce a serious case of narcolepsy. If you have insomnia, rent this. | 0neg
|
I often feel like Scrooge, slamming movies that others are raving about - or, I write the review to balance unwarranted raves. I found this movie almost unwatchable, and, unusual for me, was fast-forwarding not only through dull, clichéd dialog but even dull, clichéd musical numbers. Whatever originality exists in this film -- unusual domestic setting for a musical, lots of fantasy, some animation -- is more than offset by a script that has not an ounce of wit or thought-provoking plot development. Individually, June Haver and Dan Dailey appear to be nice people, but can't carry a movie as a team. Neither is really charismatic or has much sex appeal. They're both bland. I like Billy Gray, but his character is pretty one-note. The best part of the film, to me, are June Haver's beautiful costumes and great body. | 0neg
|
Wow, how bad can it get. This was seriously bad. Not in terms of the gore - which was mainly laughable CGI - but in acting, atmosphere and direction.<br /><br />The story was dreadful - the character arc of the main lead was a total joke. Within a few nights of stalking Vinnie Jones, he starts to become 'haunted' to the point of crying when photographing his girlfriend. Um... are all New York photographers this childish, suggestible and weak? His character development had absolutely no justification or point whatsoever - and by the very end you'll be laughing out loud at the utterly predictable, and totally absurd twist his character takes.<br /><br />The gory moments were clearly just a weak, low-self-esteemed effort to jump onto the modern MTV style gore wagon - all cgi, blood yet no real emotion whatsoever. These parts were unintentionally funny - and distracting by their self-consciousness - wacky camera angles etc.<br /><br />Overall this film commits the crime of blowing another potential idea. What could have had atmosphere (until the stupid monsters at the end) is ruined in favour of 'look at me'style self-conscious directing. This film wasn't made for and audience - it was made for a CV - a deeply selfish motive. | 0neg
|
Do not bother to waste your money on this movie. Do not even go into your car and think that you might see this movie if any others do not appeal to you. If you must see a movie this weekend, go see Batman again.<br /><br />The script was horrible. Perfectly written from the random horror movie format. Given: a place in confined spaces, a madman with various weapons, a curious man who manages to uncover all of the clues that honest police officers cannot put together, and an innocent and overly curious, yet beautiful and strong woman with whom many in the audience would love to be able to call their girlfriend. Mix together, add much poorly executed gore, and what the hell, let's put some freaks in there for a little "spin" to the plot.<br /><br />The acting was horrible, and the characters unbelievable - Borat was more believable than this.<br /><br />***Spoiler***and can someone please tell me how a butcher's vest can make a bullet ricochet from the person after being shot without even making the person who was shot flinch??? I'm in the army. We need that kind of stuff for ourselves.<br /><br />1 out of 10, and I would place it in the decimals of that rounded up to give it the lowest possible score I can. | 0neg
|
I would just like it to be known, that I do not often rate movies below a 5. I was originally very excited to see this movie. Its numerous trailer bumps on TV for several months made me REAALLY want to see this movie. So, the other night when I saw that it was available on FearNet on Demand, I got some popcorn and sat down to watch the film.<br /><br />The storyline seemed intriguing enough - some dude is butchering unsuspecting people on the subway. There's a photographer obsessed with the missing people. Where are they going? What's happening to them? One day, the photographer sees a connection between some photos he has taken, and becomes obsessed with the butcher, following him around, yada yada. The film had a way of sucking you in, even though the plot was highly predictable. "Oh no, it's dark, look out behind you" I say, quite bored with the cheap thrills.<br /><br />The plot, even though predictable, was intriguing...that is, until the end. "This was good until the end.... Then it just got silly", says Jack_skellington_freke on the message boards. And I fully agree. And here come the spoilers...<br /><br />See, I was hoping it was some mad killer, some psychotic person obsessed with cannibalism. No. It was some secret society keeping creatures alive for centuries. Woo. How original. How unrealistic. How dull.<br /><br />3/10. Come on Lionsgate. You've had amazing films, but this one sunk. | 0neg
|
I am really surprised that this movie get a ranking like this! I haven't seen such a bad movie for years.Omg this was a really bad movie. Splatter, is not enough to describe the unnecessary (nearly funny) blood scenes). If you didn't like hostel2 or Wolf Creek or Halloween (2007) ..well this is 10 time worse. The story remind me RL Stine goosebumps.!<br /><br />I can't tell about the acting since the script was so terrible.Cliché all the time. (why i must write 10lines? i never understood this.)<br /><br />==Here comes spoilers==<br /><br />The story is about a butcher killing people all the time in metro. We are talking about thousands of killings and no one gets notice. Actually those people are just missing. And There is the good guy that tries to solve the mystery (well there is no mystery for us because we know from the beginning the bad guy) and as usual no one believes him! what a surprise! In the end he puts butcher clothes and fights to death with the killer butcher! | 0neg
|
Where to start. The film started out pretty well, but after the 30 min mark i caught myself watching the clock. The horror at the start of the film was good but then the story kicked in. It just got stupider and stupider as time ticked by.<br /><br />The actors gave an average performance in this movie however, i got a bit bored of Vinny Jones constant scowling in the film.<br /><br />As the film dragged on, and take my word for it, it dragged on, it just got more and more far fetched.<br /><br />*** SPOILER ALERT *** SPOILER ALERT *** SPOILER ALERT *** Just when i thought the film could not get any worse, towards the end loads if skeleton looking monsters turned up, just to eat the dead people which made no sense at all. It turned out to be some sort of flesh eating cult and the good guys die at the end. The ending in fact just made me laugh at how bad it was. Once the lead role disposes of Vinny Jones, he becomes the new killer.<br /><br />In closing, this film made Creep look like the best horror film ever made. I gave it 1 star because the female lead did a pretty good job but even she could not save this train wreck of a movie!! | 0neg
|
This was a terrible film. There was no story line whatsoever. To top it all off, when they couldn't explain the blood and gore (the only good part) ... they threw in a few aliens! I hate when directors (or whatever) run out of ideas and then blame the aliens! Watch this film if you like. But don't say I didn't warn you. Two things: How could Vinny say "welcome" when he didn't have a tongue? Its a pity Mr Jones didn't have a bigger role. Second thing that bugged me, why were we shown Vinny Jones' boils and him cutting them off and putting them into blue liquid, then these have no further role. Why not? I don't like to be shown something and that has nothing to do with the story line whatsoever. In short. Bad story. I wouldn't waste my time - wish I'd have watched Mirrors instead. | 0neg
|
I have heard a lot about this film, with people writing me telling me I should see it, as I am a fan of extremely bloody, gory movies. I got my hands on it almost right away, but one thing or another always kept me from watching it- until now. I would have been better off not remembering I even had it.<br /><br />This movie was atrocious. The worst thing though is that it could have been so much better than it actually was. I know it was a story by Clive Barker and all, and no I have not read that story- but it appears to me that if you haven't then you will be, as I was, completely clueless and utterly disappointed.<br /><br />The film begins good enough- the actors are convincing, the story interesting. The first scene is bloody- a great way to catch your attention. I thought the blood looked a bit bad, but seeing as it was the very first scene I did hope for improvement later on. I was wrong. <br /><br />The blood and effects are so horrible, it was almost an insult to my intelligence to be expected to believe that, for instance, someone could knock a person's head right off their shoulders using only a meat hammer. WTF? CGI blood (did they even use ANY "real" blood at all? My home made stuff looks better than any used in this film!), unbelievable acts of dismemberment (eyeballs popping out just from getting hit in the back of the head; arms cut neatly off- does no one remember there are BONES all throughout our bodies?!), too-dark scenes (every scene is either an odd yellow color, or in hidden in shadows)...it just gets worse and worse. I found myself pointing out mistake after mistake. There's just too much. Add that to the fact that what could have and should have been a great serial-killer movie turns into some demonic/supernatural/monster movie at the end...no thank you! It should have been kept as a creepy guy butchering people in the subway- OK, with a conspiracy theory thrown in- and an overzealous photographer. Maybe they murder people and sell the meat via the meat plant? Plausible, doable...and a lot better I think than the "real" story. That could have and should have worked. Instead it became a "creatures living at the end of the old tunnel and everyone knows about it but you, and unless you read the book, well...you just won't ever understand it" fiasco. Tragic, what an awful thing to do to a movie with such potential. If you like mindless fake blood and gore, you'll love this. But if you have half a brain in your head then you will completely hate it. Stay away- far, far away. | 0neg
|
IT was no sense and it was so awful... i think Hollywood have a lot of film like that... you don't have do watch it. people cutter or eater what should i say... it made me sick! oh my god! film is about people that we don't know but feed themselves with Humans! they have teeths bla bla bla... isn't that familiar? i can bet on it you saw it in a another movie. the cast was so great but i think scenario was really awful. and i should say that Bradley Cooper was totally awesome... he's so talented... actually i said awful but i think it because of horrible scenes... let me explain it. did you ever eat tongue? but in the film one person did it! it was really awful... anyway i think film would so good without that awful human eater or cutter scenes... | 0neg
|
I am not one of those people who just go online after I see a movie and decide to call it the worst movie ever made. If you doubt me, please look at my other reviews. However, for the first time ever, I have seen a movie so horrible that I wanted to write about how bad it was before it was even over.<br /><br />I LOVE bad movies. To me, Ed Wood is a genius, I thought Bloody Murder, Jeepers Creepers and most horrible horror movies were good. However, there is not a single good thing I can say about this film.<br /><br />The plot is basically non existent. If someone reading my review wastes their money to see it, they can discern for themselves what the plot might be, but I advise you that a nickel would be worth more than watching this movie.<br /><br />The special effects are bad.<br /><br />The acting is bad.<br /><br />The two leads are attractive, but that's all there is.<br /><br />I am not the type to spoil a movie for anyone, but I INVITE anyone to email me at [email protected] to ask for my opinion on this movie before they waste a dime on it. I will tell you anything.<br /><br />I love bad movies, and I love horror and I love new inventive movies. I even love horror porn stuff like Hostel (Which some reviewers claimed this was like, but obviously they only thought so cause Roger Bart was in this and Hostel 2). But this may be the Number 1 most worthless and stupid and dumbass movie EVER made.<br /><br />And before you disregard this review, this is coming from someone who not only sat through the ENTIRE premiere of House of the Dead, but actually bought a copy of it. | 0neg
|
OK, so I just saw the movie, although it appeared last year... I thought that it was generally a decent movie, except for the storyline, which was stupid and horrible... First of all, we never get to know anything about the creatures, why they appeared, wtf are they doing in our world, and really, have they been on Earth before we were or did they just come from space? Secondly, the role of the butcher to maintain order is just so obviously created... Really, how large could the underground for a sub station could have been? There were only so many of those creatures, so I think instead of killing innocent people in vain, they could have just planted some tactical bombs, or maybe clear the are and a Nuke would have done the job. I know it sounds funny and it is, but I do not see the killing of people as being NECESSARY... Thirdly, Leon acts like Superman jumping on the train and fighting Vinnie Jones, who was way taller and bigger in stature. Then again, when he faces the conductor he does nothing and acts as a wimp, watching all the abominations. I mean OK, the conductor had creepy help(lol), but if Leon was so brave he would have gone all the way... I mean he risks his life first, then does nothing exactly when he should have. He could have died as a hero but lives as a coward... this might be the case, but not after showing so much braveness earlier on... Then, the cop thing... come on! This was a city having a subway, I bet there must have been other cops except that lady, other police stations,this was really kind of silly... All in all, great acting by Vinnie Jones, interesting idea up to the reason behind it which is not really built at all... By the way, what did the signs on the chest mean? Vinnie Jones cannot make up for the rest... | 0neg
|
I don't know why, but i thought i've seen this movie before. Maybe it was the name, maybe it was the way poster looked, i don't know. Anyway, it was quite promising in the beginning. And even throughout the whole feature there were some bright moments. Maybe its because i'm not a huge fan of the horrors, and i don't watch them a lot, but this one actually looked fresh sometimes. But the rest of it is not so good. Laughable at times. The movie is slow paced, sometimes you will get so bored you'd forget what was the story about. Characters are not great either. All of them. The butcher is OK, seems creepy and crazy enough. Although i didn't get what were those weird looking things on his chest (that whole scene just looked fake and kind of out-of-the-blue), and why he was collecting those in jars at home? The main lead is plain. His character is really hard to believe in, and very undeveloped. But i guess thats scenarists fault. Like why he cried when he was taking pictures of his girlfriend? Side cast is bad too. But the main thing i hated in this movie was the girl. My god, when will women in horror movies have any brains? Its ridiculous. The girl finds out that a maniac took her boyfriends camera, tries going to police, that fails, and then she thinks of the best idea ever. Why don't we just go and take it! I know where the maniac lives! Yup! Thats swell! And then look for the camera in the bathroom! Why not? And then walk in the room, see a bag that was not there before, and just have a look inside. Maybe camera is there? Not there. But loads of interesting stuff. Shiny. Mmmm. To realize that bag means that the butcher came back is too hard for her tiny tiny brain. Then of course the never ending "falling while running away" trick, that really made it look bad. Then, to put the final nail into the character, in the end of the movie, she walks into the wagon FULL with dead bodies hanging feet up, screams "Noooo" like she just ripped her Gucci bag, and walks further into the wagon... Jeez. Come on. No one else thinks its just, well, stupid? Just awful. If her character wasn't so bad, maybe the movie would get another star or two from me. And i would even forgive MMT characters that can take a hit in the head with a steel hammer (that dude in the train who the conductor killed), butcher vests that can protect from bullets, weird and cheap looking monsters in the end (i didn't read Clive Barkers novel, so i have no idea where those monsters came from), the fact that no one cared that hundreds (judging on the skeletons in the dungeon) disappeared in the city, and main character that didn't bleed to death when he got his tongue ripped out (he barely noticed it i guess). Oh, and the predictable ending. Damn, i knew the ending half way in, its just disappointing. The only reason i'm still giving some credit to the makers, is that the movie in general looks better than most of the horrors i've watched past few months. Visual style is nice, some shots were really nice and good CGI that made the killings look really brutal. (although blood didn't look real at all) I guess some people will enjoy it, some, like me, will watch it if there is nothing else to watch, some will absolutely hate it. | 0neg
|
I heard and read many praising things about "Midnight Meat Train", which is based on a short story written by no less than Clive Barker and supposedly the best adaptation of his work since the original "Hellraiser" that he directed himself, but so far I can only express very mixed sentiments about my viewing experience. The most appropriate term to summarize the whole film in just word is: nauseating! The violence is sadistic and extreme, which undoubtedly attracts fanatic young horror enthusiasts, but it's also indescribably gratuitous and exploitative. Normally speaking, I'm very pro-violence but it has to at least serve some kind of purpose. The butchering literally depicted in "Midnight Meat Train" is exclusively meant to shock and to repulse the viewers with weak nerve systems and easily upset stomachs, and even that isn't fully effective due to the use of digital computer effects. There are more shortcomings, some even bigger than the pointless gore, but perhaps I should focus on the good elements first. The basic concept is definitely promising and multiple sequences (like the chase in the freezer room, for example) are literally oozing with nail-biting suspense and macabre atmosphere. Unfortunately the pacing is very uneven and the elaboration of the potentially fantastic plot is made unnecessarily convoluted. Presumably the processing of a short story into a long feature film scenario is responsible for the pacing irregularities, but I honestly feel they could have done more with the denouement as well as with the character played by Vinnie Jones. The plot introduces Leon, an aspiring photographer in New York whose agent advises to search for the truly menacing face of the city through sinister pictures. Leon then becomes obsessed with stalking an introvert and suspiciously behaving butcher who always awaits the midnight train. Leon's right, as the butcher turns out to be a relentless serial killer who literally crushes his victims with a big hammer, but the killer's motivations and behavior suggest there's something far more substantial going on the rails at night. "Midnight Meat Train" takes place in naturally unsettling locations like subway stations at night and animal abattoirs, plus the film also benefices of good acting performances and a truckload of downright disturbing images (like cadavers on meat hooks and train carriages smeared in blood), but director Ryûhei Kitamura ("Versus", "Godzilla Final Wars") doesn't take full advantage of it all. The ending leaves a whole lot questions unanswered and, even if Clive Barker meant to have like this, I still think we deserved a slightly more clarifying finale. "Midnight Meat Train" is a somewhat intriguing and definitely haunting film, but not without defaults. It's not intended for easily offended viewers, but maybe people looking for plot coherence and clarity should leave it alone as well. | 0neg
|
Loved the original story, had very high expectations for the film (especially since Barker was raving about it in interviews), finally saw it and what can I say? It was a total MESS! The directing is all over the place, the acting was atrocious, the flashy visuals and choreography were just flat, empty and completely unnecessary (whats up with the generic music video techniques like the fast-forward-slow mo nonsense? It was stylish yes but not needed in this film and cheapened the vibe into some dumb MTV Marilyn Manson/Smashing Pumpkins/Placebo music video). Whilst some of the kills are pretty cool and brutal, some are just ridiculously laughable (the first kill on the Japanese girl was hilarious and Ted Raimi's death was just stupidly funny). It just rushes all over the place with zero tension and suspense, totally moving away from the original story and then going back to it in the finale which by that point just feels tacked on to mess it up even more. No explanations were given whatsoever, I mean I knew what was happening only as i'd read the story but for people who hadn't it's even more confusing as at times even i didn't know where it was going and what it was trying to do- it was going on an insane tangent the whole time.<br /><br />God, I really wanted to like this film as i'm a huge fan of Barker's work and loved the story as it has immense potential for a cracking movie, hell I even enjoyed some of Kitamura's movies as fun romps but this film just reeked of amateurism and silliness from start to finish- I didn't care about anyone or anything, the whole thing was rushed and severely cut down from the actual source, turning it into something else entirely. Granted it was gory and Vinnie Jones played a superb badass, but everything else was all over the place, more than disappointing. Gutted | 0neg
|
The main problem with the documentary "Czech Dream" is that isn't really saying what it thinks it's saying.<br /><br />In an audacious - I hesitate to use the word "inspired" - act of street theater, Vit Klusak and Filip Remunda, two student filmmakers from the Czech Republic, pulled off a major corporate hoax to serve as the basis for their movie: they deliberately fabricated a phony "hypermarket" (the Eastern European equivalent of Costco or Wal Mart Super Store), built an entire ad campaign around it - replete with billboards, radio and TV spots, an official logo, a catchy theme song and photos of fake merchandise - and then waited around to see just how many "dopes" would show up to their creation on opening day. They even built a makeshift façade to convince people that the store itself actually existed.<br /><br />One might well ask, "Why do such a thing?" Well, that's a very good question, but the answer the filmmakers provide isn't all that satisfying a one. Essentially, we're told that the purpose of the stunt was to show how easily people can be manipulated into believing something - even something that's not true - simply through the power of advertising. And the movie makers run for moral cover by claiming that the "real" (i.e. higher) purpose for the charade is to convince the Czech people not to fall for all the advertisements encouraging them to join the European Union. Fair enough - especially when one considers that the actual advertisers who agree to go along with the stunt declaim against the unethical nature of lying to customers, all the while justifying their collaboration in the deception by claiming it to be a form of "research" into what does and does not work in advertising. In a way, by allowing themselves to be caught on camera making these comments, these ad men and women are as much dupes of the filmmakers as the poor unsuspecting people who are the primary target of the ruse.<br /><br />But, in many ways, the satirical arrow not only does not hit its intended target, it ironically zeroes right back around on the very filmmakers who launched it. For it is THEY THEMSELVES and NOT the good-hearted and naturally trusting people who ultimately come off as the unethical and classless ones here, as they proceed to make fools out of perfectly decent people, some of them old and handicapped and forced to travel long distances on foot to get to the spot. And what is all this supposed to prove anyway? That people are "greedy" because they go to the opening of a new supermarket looking for bargains? Or that they're stupid and gullible because they don't suspect that there might not be an actual market even though one has been advertised? Such vigilance would require a level of cynicism that would make it virtually impossible to function in the real world.<br /><br />No, I'm afraid this smart-alecky, nasty little "stunt" only proves what complete and utter jerks the filmmakers are for making some really nice people feel like idiots. And, indeed many of them, when they finally discover the trick that's been played on them, react with a graciousness and good humor I'm not sure I would be able to muster were I to find myself in their position.<br /><br />I'm not saying that the movie isn't gripping - something akin to witnessing a massive traffic accident in action - but, when the dust has finally settled and all the disappointed customers return red-faced and empty-handed to their homes, we can safely declare that they are not the ones who should be feeling ashamed. | 0neg
|
Like most people I was intrigued when I heard the concept of this film, especially the "film makers were then attacked" aspect that the case seems to emphasize, what with the picture on the cover of the film makers being chased by an angry mob.<br /><br />Then, to watch the film and discover, oh, what they mean by "the film makers were attacked" was some kids threw rocks at a sign and a number of people complained loudly and said "Someone should beat those two kids up." The picture on the cover, "the chase" as it were? Total fabrication. Which I guess ties in with the theme of the film, lying and manipulation to satisfy vain, stupid children with more money and time then sense.<br /><br />I have no idea what great truth the viewer is supposed to take away from this film. It's like Michael Moore's "Roger & Me", but if "Roger & Me" was Moore mocking the people of Flint. It's completely misdirected and totally inane. Wow! Can you believe that people who suffered under the yoke of Communism would be really excited to have markets full of food? What jerks! And it's not so much, "Look at the effects of capitalism and western media blah blah blah", since it wasn't just that their fake market had comparable prices to the competitors, it was that, as many people in the film say, the prices were absurdly low, someone mentions that they should've known it was fake by how much they were charging for duck. That's not proving anything except that people who are poor, will go to a store that has low prices, bravo fellas, way to stick it to the people on the bottom.<br /><br />Way to play a stupid practical joke on elderly people. You should be very proud. How about for your next movie you make a documentary about Iraq and show how people there will get really excited for a house without bullet holes in the walls and then, say, "HAHA! NO SUCH HOUSE EXISTS! YOUR SO STUPID AND LOVED TO BE LIED TO BY THE MEDIA!".<br /><br />Morgan "Please Like Me" Spurlock unleashed this wet fart of a film and it's no surprise since Spurlock as One Hit Wonder prince of the documentary world seems to throw his weight behind any silly sounding concept to stay relevant in a world that really has no need of him.<br /><br />Avoid like the plague. | 0neg
|
This is exactly the sort of Saturday matinee serial I loved during World War II. I was under ten years of age. And that's the audience this serial is designed for. Looking at it now, one must roar at its ineptitude and stupidity. The budget must have been next to nothing, given the shortcuts and repeats. The acting? Well, this is Republic pictures, 1944. They read the lines....and no doubt had one take to make them convincing.<br /><br />One and half stars. | 0neg
|
I had high hopes for this film, because I thought CLEAN, SHAVEN (Kerrigan's first feature) was absolutely terrific, the most assuredly cinematic low budget film I'd ever seen.<br /><br />But much of CLAIRE DOLAN is utterly pointless and flat. Scene after scene seems randomly tossed into the mix, without much thought for narrative or character.<br /><br />Is Claire trying to escape being a prostitute or not? Hard to tell. Why does she pick up the trick at the airport if she wants to escape that life? Why does she then not pick up tricks when she needs money in Seattle? Why do we have to see her dye her hair to what is virtually the exact same color? Why does Claire accept some johns and not others? The filmmaker doesn't seem to know.<br /><br />It feels as if everything is improvised (though I understand this wasn't the case) and the filmmakers just held a camera on it as if they were making a verite documentary.<br /><br />After the screening I saw, Kerrigan defended his lack of narrative choices by condemning film narrative as politically conservative. It sounded like learned rhetoric. I think it was a cop-out.<br /><br />I am saddened that the maker of a film as exciting as CLEAN, SHAVEN would go on to make such a lame film as this one and then defend it with tired old "political" cliches. | 0neg
|
Probably the worst film I've ever seen, the acting and story were terrible and I almost fell asleep. The only good actor was Colm Meaney. I had the impression to see the same scenes again and again until the end, no emotion, no charisma...nothing ! | 0neg
|
This movie is another one on my List of Movies Not To Bother With. Saw it 40 years ago as an adolescent, stayed up late to do so, was very annoyed to find that it was about 95% romance,4% everything else, 1% history if that. It's what I call a bait and switch movie, one with an interesting title, the actual movie is a scam. This is a subject which deserves a good cinematic treatment, this movie is almost an insult to those who served. The actual members of the Lafayette Escadrille were not on the run from the law nor were they the products of abusive homes, they were in reality idealists who wanted to do something to help France. And I suspect many of them came from a more upper class background than Tab Hunter's character. Flying school is not for the smart alecks and the know it alls, an individual such as the one portrayed here wouldn't have lasted two days, it would have either been the stockade or the infantry. Discipline in the French Army was often rather fierce. In short, another Hollywierd version of an historical episode that deserves proper treatment. | 0neg
|
If this movie was about a fictional character, the movie could stand on its own and be judged objectively. Unfortunately for the viewer, the movie is based on "facts" that are shaded very unfairly toward Ruben Carter. Many of the smaller facts were disregarded (Carter was NOT number one contender at the time of the murders, there is no proof at all that he saved a friend from a child molester in his youth), but some of the larger facts, like apparently being robbed of a decision to Joey Giardello because of "racist" judges, is inexcusable to those of us who have seen the fight on tape, and completely disrespectful to Giardello. Why Hollywood feels the need to make a hero out of someone who, at best, was in trouble and around trouble much more than any normal person should be (was arrested multiple times for beating women) is strange to me. Ruben Carter was never, by viewing his actions in the 60's and even now, when he refuses to speak to his son, a person that people can look up to. Everyone knows that Jewison can direct, and Washington can act, but why they chose this story as their vehicle is beyond me. Is Hollywood so much in need of a black hero that they need to bend the truth in all of their bio pics to make them believable? (Heres a suggestion How about Denzel playing a movie about himself? Now thats inspirational) Based on all of the inaccuracies in the movie, I would suggest passing on this one. | 0neg
|
When I saw this movie I heard all the hype, and I heard how people said that Denzel deserved the Oscar alongside his Golden Globe and I believed he must have done an outstanding job considering Kevin Spacey was excellent. I was wrong. I realize that people say this not to anger the African American community (if they are not African Americans themselves). I always hear complaints on how African Americans are never nominated and how they should have won. Sometimes this is true (not as much nowadays) because Whoppi Goldberg should have won best actress for The Color Purple and the movie should have won best picture. The only reason this movie was so blown up the way it was, is because people see a movie about the (*SEMI-SPOILER*) hardships of an African American during a very racist time period and they automatically label it as a masterpiece.<br /><br />Denzel Washington is an outstanding actor, but his role in this movie did not affect me whatsoever. I was bored with him in the movie, and his acting here was quite similar to his role in Malcolm X but not as good. The audience is supposed to leave believing this man, Rubin Carter, is a saint. People left the movies worshipping this man, this hero, and they went out and bought his book, making this hero of a man rich.<br /><br />*SPOILERS* This movie tells the tale of a man who spent the majority of his life in prison mainly for crimes he did not commit. Of course the crimes he did commit (stealing mostly) was only to survive, nothing more. People felt sorry for him, even though the drug dealers and thieves probably amounted to as much for the same reasons but are looked down upon in society. Everything in this movie tries to portray this man as a saint (except for the obvious infidelity he had towards his wife and the aggression he showed the other man when he met his wife) but why wouldn't it-after all, it is his point of view. I do not like movies (especially Hollywood interpretations) that are based on "true" stories because they usually distort the "true" parts into something else, something not so true. This was his point of view and a Hollywood construction, yet everyone believed it was the truth unquestionably. Well I researched his past a bit before making any assumptions, and he was a very violent man. Not only that, there is still a possibility that he did murder those people. If you do not believe me, search for him on the internet, and read the articles some people have of him. The boxing match he claimed to have won so easily, was actually won by his opponent Joey Giardello and there are tapes to prove it. Besides that, there are many twisted and purposely left out facts in this movie. The supporting cast were the nicest people I have ever seen on the face of the Earth and their "nice and perfect" persona looked difficult to keep up.<br /><br />This movie was a Hollywood version of yet another unfortunate true story that is still left to be told truthfully. Denzel's acting is stale, and the supporting cast's Mickey Mouse attitudes are annoying. The movie also begins very slow paced and is boring. | 0neg
|
Denzel is about the only thing that is right in this movie.<br /><br />Maybe once in an early stage this was a better movie. Someone decided to cut some action and plot points into the beginning of the movie, giving away most of the story line in about the first 5 minutes. That and ruining whatever build up in pace and rhythm the movie might have had before.<br /><br />So first it confuses you and then it puts you off. The dramatization pushes beyond suspension of disbelieve.<br /><br />Of course there is that feeling of great injustice and anger that movies like this potentially manage to instill in viewers. Granted, it does that so if you are looking for that ... knock yourself out. | 0neg
|
This movie looks like it was made for TV . For years I waited for some movie to be made about Rubin Carter, because I loved to see him box at the old MSG, and to see this movie was very disappointing.I have alot of respect for Mr Washington, but he was awful and boring.There is really nothing good to say about this movie except I did like the song. | 0neg
|
Fairly good movie, but not a true story.<br /><br />Rubin "Hurricane" Carter was a notorius liar, a murder and was never found not guilty. New Jersey State just didn't go for it a third time as 20 years had gone. Carter got an offer in 1976: "Pass a lie test and go free". He didn't take it. This film should never have been made, but money talks. A lot of people have unjustly spend their lives in prison and undoubtedly more blacks than white. Why choose a fake story?<br /><br />Jens | 0neg
|
This is an OK film but lacks any real depth either emotionally or in terms of story telling.<br /><br />The story is based on real events and this limits the amount of action to virtually none, also no real suspense.<br /><br />Washington is believable in the lead but he is sleep walking through it, there is no scope to flex any acting muscles for him or the supporting cast.<br /><br />The story simply falls a little flat, even having never heard of the title character the ending was obvious but unlike other films about such injustices this one has no emotional impact, you don't really care about him and the motivations of those on the outside helping seem more academic than concerned for his welfare.<br /><br />There is an attempt to inject some emotion using the boy outside who hero worships Carter but this seems forced.<br /><br />It's an OK film but instantly forgettable. | 0neg
|
Second-tier American leading man Guy Madison plays a character whose notoriety precedes him in this Spaghetti Western which, having very modest credentials emerges as essentially routine (though featuring a nice enough score). The plot offers some mild interest: the title, incidentally, refers to a wounded man involved in the murderous assault by gun-runners on a ranch the property of the family of their pursuer, cavalry agent Madison. The latter's younger siblings are determined that the injured party, now in their charge, lead them to the gang boss responsible; ultimately, the identity of either mystery man proves a surprise and both, ironically, become involved with one of Madison's sisters (another is raped during the raid). Euro-Cult starlet Rosalba Neri appears unremarkably as a saloon hostess, and Madison's ex-flame. | 0neg
|
As far as Spaghetti Westerns go, I'd put This Man Can't Die on the dull side of the genre. It's not that the movie is particularly bad, but it lacks the brilliance and flash of some of the other SWs I've seen. Guy Madison does his best in the lead role, but lacks the on-screen charisma necessary to pull it off. With one notable exception, the rest of the cast isn't particularly good. The direction is uninspired and offers very few moments that I haven't seen before. There's just not much to get very excited about.<br /><br />The cast exception I mentioned is Rosalba Neri. She's the one bright spot in this otherwise mediocre film. Unfortunately, her screen time is limited to less than 15 minutes. (Note: The IMDb page for This Man Can't Die is wrong. Rosalba Neri does not play Jenny Benson. Instead, she is the character Melin. I'm not sure how anyone could mistake Rosalba Neri for some guy named John Bartha as listed in IMDb's credits for the movie.) | 0neg
|
TYSON <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.33:1<br /><br />Sound format: Stereo<br /><br />Reverent - though scrupulously fair - account of the life and times of champion boxer Mike Tyson. Given his conviction on a rape charge, the film is careful not to portray him as hero or villain, but paints a warts-and-all portrait of his rise to fame, the pressures of success, and the people who shaped his destiny for good or bad. Constrained by time limits, the script gallops through a succession of relevant details, alighting briefly on significant events, culminating with Tyson's (temporary) downfall in 1995. Novices will be enlightened by the chronology, while boxing fans will be entertained by director Uli Edel's straight-arrow approach to the material. He portrays Tyson's life as a circus in which he was ultimately led astray by the circumstances of his own success. In fact, the script reserves most of its venom for Tyson's ex-wife Robin Givens, characterising her as an ungrateful gold-digger who took advantage of his naivety. Production values are uniformly solid and the cast is superb: Michael Jai White does a fair imitation of the title character; George C. Scott plays Tyson's mentor Cus D'Amato through acres of gritted teeth; and Paul Winfield was surely born to play Don King! | 0neg
|
A very ordinary made-for-tv product, "Tyson" attempts to be a serious biopic while stretching the moments of angst for effect, fast forwarding through the esoterics of the corrupt sport of boxing, and muddling the sensationalistic stuff which is the only thing which makes Tyson even remotely interesting. A lukewarm watch at best which more likely to appeal to the general public than to boxing fans. | 0neg
|
This film was on late at night when I saw it. It was interesting at start but it didn't convince me as a whole. I am no Tyson fan. In fact I don't like boxing at all. It's barbaric, obscene and double faced (by society) that some get money for beating each other up.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I felt the start of the film was OK. Actors alright, especially George C. Scott (as Cus D'Amato). I don't know how reliable the flick is. I haven't read books and books about boxing or Tyson. I don't know anything about the man, but it was quite entertaining.<br /><br />As the movie went on I felt it lost a little of it's charm and I also lost interest. I managed to stay awake though but the last hour was just not good enough. | 0neg
|
I know it's a Power-Rangers gimmick and catered to 7 year olds but really why were they taking themselves seriously with this movie? If they are going to write a plot with crayons, at least have the decency to make it silly. It's kind of hilarious if you watch this. We have a typical family filled with cliched characters (father a war veteran who lost his wife and blames himself LOLOL), air-head children trying to hard to fill the stereotype but fails with horrendous acting, and a laughably horrid sidekick who serves no purpose to the movie but to fill camera space. Funny stuff!<br /><br />However, the real great moment comes near the end when war-dad and bad-acting-villain try to work a sword fight, but then they realize none of them know how to (probably because no room in budget for choreographers), so they come up with this American Gladiator type setting to run around in. LOL.<br /><br />1/10 rating because they try to treat this seriously. | 0neg
|
While the overall idea of Escape from Atlantis was intriguing, I found the film to be far less than what I had hoped for upon reading the plot summery. Perhaps I am too much of a child in the technological age: the movie was made, as it is now 2002, an official five years ago --after viewing fantasy epics such as Lord of the Rings, and science fiction feats like Star Wars, as a whole it could not compare to other movies of similar line such as Dinotopia or Homer's The Odyssey.<br /><br />My beef, basically, is that I couldn't relate --I am just about the same age of the children (a young adult), and have no trouble putting myself in the place of a middle-aged man if that is the character available. But the picture did not take me to a different mental plain of existence. I didn't find myself saying 'ACK! I would have done the SAME thing!'. It did not open the doors to my imagination. Even without comparing it to high-budget films or other TV movies, standing alone, certain aspects of the feature I found to be cliche: The character development in the children occurred too rapidly for my liking, seeing too much of the stereotypical selfish-teenager-bitter-after-divorce image changing into the we're-a-big-happy-family-let's-never-separate-again feel that can ultimately make or break a picture in the long run. Even the characters themselves could have undergone improvement: a typical set of one or the other stereotypes. There was the ever-present selfish beauty looking to be rebellious, accompanied by Mr. Perfect image of combining athletics, good looks and intelligence yet a brooding attitude, and lastly the smart-aleck little brother we find to be so common these days. While I know the personalities pushed the story along, I think that adding more individuality as far as nuances and more unique differences would have made it a more enjoyable --and believable (as far as character)-- movie.<br /><br />I do have to raise my glass to the costume and set design --that made it worth finishing to the end for me. Don't get me wrong: all movies are worth seeing for yourself, and the opinion of one could never account for the opinion of many, but I think that with a little more depth to the script, and a little more (I cannot believe I am saying this) realness I dare say Escape from Atlantis could have been magical. | 0neg
|
You gotta love the cheesy low budget movies. This one comes complete with bad effects, props and bad acting (really bad). Plus, every time I see Mercedes McNab (the sister) I keep thinking 'Watch out! She's a vamp!"- for those that know Buffy/Angel.<br /><br />A perfect example of what happens when someone with bad taste and wants to waste money making a flick, the little that was spent of course. I don't know if I feel more sorry for the writer of the movie or the producer who didn't make back any money.<br /><br />I'd say it's good for little kids in it's simplicity, but I don't know if I'd want to subject a kid to it...<br /><br />umm...1/10 because that's the lowest it will go. | 0neg
|
Over several years of looking for half-decent films to rent for my kids, I've developed a sixth-sense for spotting the really cheesy, direct-to-video efforts that are really painful to sit through (for anyone over the age of eight). I dropped the ball on this one and the kids spent half the movie asking me "what did she say that for?" and "why did he do that?" and my eyes got sore from rolling them every minute or so as characters did a really bad job of introducing seemingly random plot changes. And the next time someone decides that having absolutely no skill with a sword is simply "bringing realism" to a film, please run them through with a dull butter knife. "Prehysteria!" was head and shoulders above this. Arrgh. | 0neg
|
honestly, where can I begin! This was a low budget, HORRIBLY acted film, it was so cheesy it had us all bursting with laughter to how completely retarded it was! the sword fighting scenes weren't even sword fights, they were playing around with some plastic swords they bought at wal-mart and all they were doing was just moaning to try and make it look like they were struggling!! Me and my family was in the mood for a really good action movie one day, so we decided to go to the store and look for one, and there it was The Sawtooth Island movie. I mean it looked so great but when we watched it at home I practically died after the first scene.<br /><br />Oh and the plot of the film, the story board, the script, etc..was a bunch of garbage that I don't even know why the director and producer even wasted their time making it!! But if you happen to stumble upon this movie..do not get it!!!!! | 0neg
|
The only reason I elected to give this flick a shot was due to the presence of Oscar winner Ernest Borgnine. All I can say is, it was the greatest waste of a good actor ever put to film. As far as I could tell, Borgnine was the ONLY actor in it. The other performances were so uniformly terrible, I am amazed a studio would actually pay the "performers" to appear. Couple this level of talent in the acting department with a story so plodding and insipid that I thought my eyes were going to start bleeding by the time the credits rolled, and you have a perfect cinematic disaster. Obviously the movie was made to appeal to an audience of children, and to its credit, it was better than most of the original programing on the Disney Channel and similar kid-focused networks. But honestly, that is not saying much. | 0neg
|
Skullduggery is a strange, strange film based on the novel "Ye Shall Know Them" by Vercors. To unleash criticism at the film feels really unkind, since it is a movie that deals with earnest themes like humanity, and pleas for upright moral standards and tolerance. But in spite of its honourable intentions and its well-meaning tone, Skullduggery simply isn't a very good film. For me, the main problem is the terribly disjointed narrative which can't make its mind up how best to convey its message. The first half of the movie is like watching a standard jungle expedition flick of the Tarzan ilk; later it teeters into sci-fi fable; by the end it slips into courtroom melodramatics. The differences in tone between each section of the movie are too great, too jarring, to overlook. They stick out like a sore thumb and remind you constantly that you're watching a muddled, disorganised movie.<br /><br />An archaeological expedition into the jungles of New Guinea is led by adventurer Douglas Temple (Burt Reynolds). One of the main archaeologists involved in the excursion is attractive lady scientist Dr Sybil Greame (Susan Clark). After an arduous trek they stumble upon a tribe of strange ape-like creatures. These primitive, long-lost people are covered in hair and have survived for centuries without being in any way touched or influenced by the developments of modern man. There is some evidence that they may the ancestors of early man the "missing link" in the evolution of apes into humans. Or perhaps a race of humans who simply look and behave differently from usual? Or even a race of animals that have begun to develop human characteristics? The archaeologists call the tribe "the Tropi" and are initially thrilled by the implications of their discovery. But things take a devastating turn when nasty opportunist Vancruysen (Paul Hubschmid) declares his intention to exploit the tribe and their idyll on behalf of developers. He questions whether the Tropi are truly "human" and takes his argument to the courts, where he hopes to be granted legal backing so that his own greedy ambitions can be continued.<br /><br />This was a very early film in Reynolds' career, and he actually unbalances this movie by acting like he's in a comedy while the rest of the cast take it all very seriously. Not that Reynolds can be blamed he has an impossible role, asked to play a charming adventurer who really belongs in a Tarzan flick. His character and the film are not relevant to each other. Clark fares much better as the earnest lady archaeologist, and there are nice supporting roles for British actors Edward Fox, Alexander Knox and Wilfrid Hyde-White. A major shortcoming in Skullduggery is the lame and ineffective make-up used to give the Tropi their strange hairy appearance. Rather than making the actors look like believable hominoids, the stuck-on hair merely makes them look unintentionally comical
. and that's just not the right idea. We're meant to feel great sympathy for these creatures, but that's awfully hard when they look so unconvincing. Skullduggery is a failed attempt to tell a story that could have been poignant, philosophical and stimulating. The honourable intentions are there for all to see, but the end result doesn't do them justice. A worthy failure it might be but a failure nonetheless. | 0neg
|
Once upon a time there was a science fiction author named H. Beam Piper who wrote a classic book named "Little Fuzzy" which was about a man discovering a race of adorable little fuzzy humanoids on another planet. Mr. Piper died in 1964, but Hollywood and many of today's authors starting looting his grave before his cadaver got cold. This is the book where they got the idea for Ewoks from.<br /><br />Skullduggery is such a blatant ripoff of "Little Fuzzy" I can wonder why I'm the only who's ever noticed?<br /><br />But don't take my word for it. Here's a link to Project Guntenberg where you can download a copy of "Little Fuzzy" for free: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18137 | 0neg
|
Taped this late night movie when I was in grade 11, watched it on fast forward. I sugest you do the same. I though it would be and action film, but went to a cort tv type movie. In the end it fits in with the early 70's social activest type films. Glad I missed that era. 2/10 | 0neg
|
This is awesomely bad and awesomely embarassing for a Canadian. We grow good wine. Our writers and poets are among the world's best. The National Ballet is rated among the top five companies in the world. BUT WE MAKE BLOODY AWFUL MOVIES! This one isn't especially bad. It's especially typical and typically bad, shot in two bit hotels and public parks with thin direction, high school level acting and "gee whiz...lets see what this button on the camera does??" photography. If Michael Moriarity was so intent on doing a Jack Nicholson impersonation, couldn't he at least have done a GOOD Jack Nicholson impersonation? And if the movie was shot in Vancouver, truly one of the loveliest cities on earth and also a centre of yacht building (part of the "plot") why in God's name do we let that endemic Canadian inferiority complex dictate that it be disguised as Seattle??? Not only am I mad about this film, I'm embarassed and more than a little ashamed. The Australians turn out some splendid stuff. We produce pretentious second rate piffle. Gawd!!!!! | 0neg
|
Saw in on TV late last night. Yeah, I can hear what y'all say about this one. It IS likely to be categorized as one of those stereo- typical TV soap series. In all fairness, the story line does have a fine twist to it, and you might nod saying, "Well, that's not what I expected." But, as a film, well it is not easy to spot a redeeming element. Casting, acting, camera work, cars, costume, setting, script, no, there's nothing to congratulate. Rated R?? Oh, that scene. Did we need it? This is a film that you can watch it and then forget that you even watched. And what was the title again? | 0neg
|
The various nudity scenes that other reviewers referred to are poorly done and a body double was obviously used. If Ms. Pacula was reluctant to do the scenes herself perhaps she should have turned down the role offer.<br /><br />Otherwise the movie was not any worse than other typical Canadian movies. As other reviewers have pointed out Canadian movies are generally poorly written and lack entertainment value, which is what most movies watchers are hoping to get. Perhaps Canadian movie producers are consciously trying to "de-commercialize" their movies but they have forgotten a very important thing - movies by definition are a commercial thing.... | 0neg
|
This was a truly bad film. The character "Cole" played by Michael Moriarty was the biggest reason this flopped, the actor felt that conjuring up an unbelievably awkward southern drawl would make this character more evil, it didn't. After about 20 minutes I had wished for a speech therapist to make an appearance, this would have added some sincerity.<br /><br />- 1) badly acted - 2) unsympathetic characters - 3) razor thin plot line<br /><br />Yuck!<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
I really felt cheated after seeing this picture. It felt like I sat watching this movie 101 minutes for nothing. I don't understand what they were thinking when they made this. It hardly gets into Jeffrey Dahmer murdering and it has no ending. It felt almost like they were leaving this movie open for a sequel. It was like watching a television episode of the Sopranos. It ends suddenly, and you know there's going to be another episode next week. It also felt like I just watched part 1 to a two part movie. There are many possibilities for what went wrong here; they got lazy, they ran out of money, they didn't know the rest of the story, they wanted to make a Dahmer 2. After seeing this movie they all sound very accurate. I was watching Jeffrey Dahmer walking through the woods. All of a sudden I hear this music playing, then writing comes on the screen and says how Dahmer served 2 years of his sentence and was attacked by a fellow inmate and killed at the age of 34. Wow, he goes from a walk in the woods to his death in jail. How about showing how he got there. How about showing Dahmer's trial. How about showing some more detail. I can't even explain what happened in this movie because it jumped all over the place. I actually found myself saying in disbelief, "That's it, that's the end?" I want to conclude this review by saying there is still a good Dahmer movie yet to be made. To the filmmakers I'd like to say, if you're going to do it, do it right. | 0neg
|
Dahmer, a young confused man. Dahmer, a confusing movie. Granted, I had a few beers while watching the movie, but that doesn't explain why I got so bored by this flick.<br /><br />Its flashbacks are nothing but confusing and annoying, and there's no real storyline with a beginning and an end, the only thing that made sense in the movie was the explaining text in the beginning and at the very end of the movie. The inbetween stuff, which would be the movie, is just boring images and a waste of time. <br /><br />We never see actual murders, everything is just a bunch of insinuations. Sometimes you even just get a feeling that Dahmer's dreaming the entire thing, but you know he isn't, since it's<br /><br />based on a true story and this actually happened, at least most of it. But what happened? It's not easy to tell.<br /><br />I do not encourage people to waste time on this movie. I<br /><br />didn't like it one bit and I felt cheated when it suddenly ended. <br /><br />*/***** | 0neg
|
I'm a big fan of the true crime genre, but I couldn't sit through this putrid piece. It was almost as if Dahmer was intended as erotica, down to the porn-flic soundtrack. There was no look at what made Dahmer tick, no exploration of who his victims were. Nothing but "Look at how creepy this guy is." And I have to give the filmmakers this much -- their Dahmer is the creepiest thing ever to disgrace the screen. | 0neg
|
Prior to watching "Dahmer," I thought no movie could be worse than "Freddy Got Fingered." I was wrong. To sum "Dahmer" up, it's a story about a gay serial killer which features almost no killing and almost entirely consists of Dahmer's encounters with gay men before they were killed. There is no plot to be found, and it serves no purpose as far as telling us anything about "Dahmer." All you'll learn about Dahmer from watching this movie is that he liked to have sex with men. Horrible acting, horrible directing, horrible writing, horrible everything... If you have to choose between watching "Dahmer" and projectile vomiting for three hours, go with the vomiting .... it wll be less painful..... | 0neg
|
This movie had so much potential. Anyone who followed the story of Jeffrey knows that there are so many details overlooked in this movie it's ridiculous. Too much time and effort was spent in the movie on Dahmer's homosexual tendencies and his alcohol consumption. Where was the character development? The origins of any villain are always interesting and Dahmer was no exception. Where in the movie does it address his adolescence when he began killing and mutilating small animals? Instead we are giving a dizzying array of flashbacks that seek to explain the origin of the killer, but fail to address the major point in Dahmer's development. Also, the reason why the country became so intrigued with this story was the details - how he stored the bodies in his apartment and the lengths and measures he went to to accomplish this; his cannibalism and his desire for flesh, etc. I could go on, but to sum up, too many lagging points in the film, focused on his sexuality and not enough of the gore - the good stuff you would expect to see when the title of the movie is "Dahmer." | 0neg
|
Well, it is hard to add comment after reading what is already here but I feel I must say something. I wasn't exactly looking for 'a splatterfest' as someone puts it or even 'blood and guts/gore'. I have some respect for the victims relatives although I really felt the filmaker DIDN'T. -They were nameless, faceless and meaningless. Just a vessel for Dahmers sexual antics.<br /><br />I watched this film with the kind of morbid curiosity that makes me think 'What makes a guy be a serial killer?' as well as wondering the specifics about the Dahmer story, of which I know very little. People here seem to think that the movie didn't have to cover the events of the Dahmer story.. I.E. his history, what happened when he got caught, the aftermath, etc but IT IS IMPORTANT! You see, I assume if you are American you WILL KNOW all of this. We do not all live in America. To tell this story about such a man as he obviously was, REQUIRES that at least SOME of the history and actual events are told/shown. This doesn't mean blood and guts, there are ways of showing horrific things in a movie by implication or clever filming without resorting to gore. Without even touching upon some of what he did (I found out more about him reading the user comments on this site!), the movie felt like a void. A moment in time with very little substance. I would like to know if there is a film about the REAL Dahmer because with its lack of direction, VERY slow pace that NEVER changes, Strange portrayal of homosexuality and the VERY unfortunate lack of ANY attempt at an ending, this movie is POOR. I would not recommend to anyone that they waste the time it takes to watch it. A definite 1 out of 10 (for the acting!) | 0neg
|
I do have the `guts' to inform you to please stay away from `Dahmer', the biographical film based on the real-life story of the grotesque serial killer. `Dahmer' strays more in relation to the mentality of its focused subject. Jeffrey Dahmer, who murdered over 15 young males and ate some of their body parts, was probably the most incongruous serial killer of our generation. However, the real sick individuals are the filmmakers of this awful spectacle who should have had their heads examined before deciding to greenlight this awful `dahm' project. This is not an easy film to digest, even though Jeffrey would have easily digested it with some fiery `brainsadillas' appetizers or even some real-life `Mr. Potato skins'. * Failure | 0neg
|
Way to go ace! You just made a chilling, grossly intriguing story of a necrophiliac cannibal into a soft, mellow, drama. Obviously a movie called Dahmer would be one of two kinds: Horror, or documentary right? This was neither. It wasn't close to any detailed facts, (in fact it barely had any substance at all) It wasn't really morbid or scary or didn't even try to be very disturbing.(as if you would've had to try!!) What the hell was this writer/director thinking?? Here's one of the most REAL examples of sick serial killers ever and we get badly shot, poorly acted gay bar roofie rapes and lengthy droning flashbacks to alone time in his old parent's house. I think Jacobson was actually trying to present (or invent) 'the soft side' of j.Dahmer. | 0neg
|
Curiosity led me to this "masterpiece". Unfortunately, I didn't rent it, I bought it! The most disturbing thing about this film is that it's not so disturbing. For reasons known only to them, the makers of this film set out to show the human side of Jeffry Dahmer. Are you kidding me? The man gave new meaning to the term "finger lickin' good"! And with all the flash-backs and flash-forwards I had trouble following the story. All in all Jeremy Renner's performance wasn't too bad. You can catch him in "S.W.A.T.", in which he plays a disgruntled ex-cop. Anyway, I would rate this as a 1/10. It only got a 1 because of Renner's so-so performance. There are plenty of books and tv documentaries out there that do a much better job of covering Dahmer's crimes. Avoid this one. | 0neg
|
It could have been a morbidly fascinating look at the life of one of America's most notorious serial killers, but sadly it doesn't even come close. Terrible editing, direction, bad acting, you name it. This movie is literally about 10 minutes of plot stretched into 100. The only redeeming quality is Bruce Davidson as the father, but that's not nearly enough to save this stinker. A 1 out of 10. | 0neg
|
"Dahmer" is an interesting film although I wouldn't use "horror" or "thriller" do describe it. It's more a minor character study that seems oddly sympathetic of the killer.<br /><br />Jeremy Renner portrays serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who drugged, murdered and dismembered his male victims. The film centers on the relationship between Dahmer and "Rodney", well-played by Artel Kayàru. <br /><br />Rodney is almost the more interesting character: enamored of Dahmer and having once escaped an attack, he returns to Dahmer for sex and survives a second attack.<br /><br />I think the film is disjointed because it does little to portray Dahmer's formative years, how events may have created the human monster we see on screen and offers no insight into Dahmer's belief that he could create sexual zombies of his victims.<br /><br />The roles are well played but the story is thin. | 0neg
|
Disappointing and undeniably dull true-crime movie that has poorly cast character actor Jeremy Renner languidly mumbling his way through the title role of Jeffrey Dahmer, who was easily one of the last century's most recognizable degenerates/serial killers. Released straight-to-video back in early 2003, "Dahmer" is an overtly talky, boring, badly acted and virtually bloodless snore-fest of a true-crime drama that never truly delves into the monstrous and demented psyche of the late mass murderer like it had the perfectly good potential to do! What it does, however, attempt to do for reasons unknown to me is evoke some sort of sympathy in the viewer for the man by portraying him out to be what is ultimately a lonely, nebbishy and severely socially inept homosexual loser who was simply lookin' for love in all the wrong places as opposed to the cold, calculating and depraved sicko and madman that he was! Overall, 2003's "Dahmer" is one that true-crime buffs everywhere might as well skip because I'm not kidding when I say that it's one of the worst serial-killer biopics ever done! It's even sorrier than other pathetic and exploitive straight-to-video trash like "Gacy", "Bundy", "Ed Gein" and "The Night Stalker"! (Turkey-Zero Stars) | 0neg
|
What about Dahmer's childhood?- The double hernia operation which is believed to have sparked off his obsession with the inner workings of the human body? What about "infinity land"? - The game he invented as a child which involved stick men being annihilated when they came too close to one another, suggesting that intimacy was the ultimate danger. What about the relationship between his parents, and the emotional problems of his mother that were far more relevant than just his own relationship with his father? His feelings of neglect when his brother was born? What about his fascination with insects and animals? How he would dissect roadkill and hang it up in the woods behind his home?What about focusing more on his cannibalism? And what about his parent's divorce? These are all things that should have been included in the film. Instead the film maker chose to give us a watered down 'snapshot' from a night or two in his life, and combine it with series of confusing and at times unnecessary flashbacks, to events that weren't even particularly relevant to our understanding of Dahmer.<br /><br />Why didn't the film maker show how Dahmer was interested in people as objects rather than people? He could have made this point many times, particularly in the scenes in which he drugs his victims whilst he has sex with them (which actually took place in a health club, not a night club). Instead he just shows him ramming away at them from behind.<br /><br />Whilst I appreciate there is only so much information you can cram into 90 minutes (or however long), but why spend such a large part of the film examining his relationship with Luis Pinet? (known as Rodney in this film). My only guess is that the director was trying to build up Pinet's character, to try and make us fear for or empathise with him, but this film is supposed to be about Jeffrey Dahmer, so why couldn't he have spend those forty five minutes on something else? If the scene and their relationship was important enough to warrant such time then fair enough, but it wasn't. The scene in which he kills Steven Hicks, his first victim, is a vital part of the Jeffrey Dahmer story because it was the first killing, and because of the effect that killing had on the rest of his life. Unfortunately the film doesn't explain that it was his first killing, or that he didn't kill again for nine years. We assume, because his hair style is different, and he is wearing glasses that this is a flashback, but to when? And why? <br /><br />What about the shrine he made in his sitting room towards the end of his career?-one of the most important clues we have towards understanding Dahmer and his motivations..<br /><br />Some people may find my need for accuracy in fact and detail a bit anal, but having studied Jeffrey Dahmer in depth, it is plain to see that this film has very little in common with the person he was and the crimes he committed. Why bother to spend the time making a film loosely based on Jeffrey Dahmer rather than tackle the real issues behind his descent into madness and the carnage that ensued?<br /><br />Finally, a film with subject matter as repellent as this should carry an 18 certificate, not a 15. We needed to see his perversion in more depth, to understand just how detached he was from the rest of us. That doesn't mean showing the drill actually entering Konerak Sinthasomphone's head for instance, but at least an indication of the amount of people he killed, and what his Modus Operandi was when actually killing. Anyone watching this film who doesn't know the story of Dahmer might come away thinking he had only killed a few people. He actually killed seventeen men.<br /><br />Aside from the facts and lack of depth, the film isn't all bad. There is some nice cinematography, and good performances from the two main characters. I'd like to see this done again by a film maker who has more knowledge, more energy, and a better reason for making the film in the first place. | 0neg
|
I was so disappointed in this movie. I don't know much about the true story, so I was eager to see it play out on film and educate myself about a little slice of history. With such a powerful true story and great actors it seemed like a surefire combination. Well, somewhere the screenplay failed them. It was so scattered - is this movie about his childhood? his love life? his own disability? his speaking ability? his passion for the disabled? I'm sure there is a way to incorporate all of those things into a good story, but this movie wasn't it. I was left cold watching characters that were unlikable not because of their disabilities, but because of their personalities. Other small gripes: 1. The heavy-handed soundtrack. It's the seventies - WE GET IT ALREADY! 2. If he's such a phenomenal public speaker, why weren't we treated to more than a snippet here and there - and even then mostly in montages? | 0neg
|
I just watched this movie in high definition on television. I am in a wheelchair due to a neuromuscular disorder and like to watch the few films made about those with physical disabilities.<br /><br />At first I found the main character somewhat noble and captivating. His message about the disabled and the life time he spent fighting to have the disabled recognized and integrated into mainstream society's job market is great. And my problem isn't with the real person who did these things. HE was a great man. But this film is completely hypocritical and diametrically opposed to the very message it is preaching, that I found it insulting.<br /><br />First of all, they didn't cast anyone in a title role with an actual physical disability. Sure they were competent actors, but it seems completely dis genuine to preach about hiring the disabled and then not actually HIRING THE DISABLED for anything in the film. Further compounded by the fact that in one scene mid way through the film a man is seen walking to a podium on crutches, appearing to have only one leg. But the CGI in this scene is so apparent it is shameful. What? They couldn't find an actual amputee anywhere for the film? For a 5 second shot it was more financially sound to do CGI effects than to just HIRE an ACTUAL amputee? At that point in the film I found it so fraudulent and completely against the message it was trying to convey that I came here to bitch and whine about it like the pathetic cripple I am.<br /><br />Figure that out. | 0neg
|
I find it heart-warming and inspiring that the writing team behind such hopelessly mainstream Hollywood movies like INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, American Graffiti and HOWARD THE DUCK would begin their career with a low-budget exploitation horror film like this. Perhaps as a testament to the talent that would earn Willard Hyuck and Gloria Katz an Oscar nomination later in their respective careers, Messiah of Evil has potential, but sadly becomes frustrating exactly because it can't muster the film-making prowess to pull it off.<br /><br />The premise involves a young girl who travels to a small coastal town in search for her painter father who went missing a while back. It doesn't take long for the fragmented narrative to abandon all hope and dive headlong in disjointed absurdity - and for a while it works admirably well to the point where you begin thinking that maybe Messiah of Evil needs to be reclaimed from the schlocky gutter of 70's exploitation as an example of artful mystery horror.<br /><br />The surreal non-sequiturs keep piling on as the daughter stumbles upon a young couple in a seedy hotel room who are in town to conduct a research on the local legend of the 'blood moon', a scruffy and half-mad alcoholic (played by the great Elisha Cook Jr. in perhaps the best scene of the movie) who warns her about her father only to be reportedly found dead in an alley 'eaten by dogs' a little later, the blind old lady that owns the local art gallery and who has inexplicably removed all of her father's paintings from the shop and last but not least a retarded, murderous, squirrel-eating albino.<br /><br />Part of the movie's charm is precisely this brand of bargain-basement artsy surrealism that defies logic and genre conventions every step of the way. Whereas with Lynch it is obviously the mark of a talented creator, with Messiah of Evil the boundaries between the 'intentional', the 'unintentional' and the 'didn't really expect it to come out this way but it's good enough - WRAP SCENE' blur hopelessly.<br /><br />Take for example the double narration that flows in and out of the picture in a drug-addled, feverish, stream-of-consciousness way, one coming from the daughter as she wanders from place to place in search for her father, and the other narrated by her father's voice as she reads his diary. <br /><br />While we're still talking about a 'living dead' picture, Messiah of Evil is different and only loosely one - at least with current preconceptions of what a zombie movie is supposed to be. The origin of the living dead here is a 100 year old curse, bestowed upon the town by a mysterious 'Dark Stranger' who came from the woods one day. In the meantime Hyuck finds time for snippets of mass-consumption criticism in a flesh-eating supermarket scene that predates DAWN OF THE DEAD by a good number of years (you can hear the MST3K line already: 'man is dead, only his capitalist food tins remain') and a nicely thought but poorly executed similar scene in a movie theater.<br /><br />I generally think that the surreal works in careful, well measured doses - how is the absurd to work if it's not hidden within the perfectly normal? Hyuck seems to just smear it all over the picture and by doing so dangerously overplays his hand. When the albino for example picks up a girl hitching her way to town and eats a squirrel in front of her, you can almost imagine the director winking meaningfully at the audience, amused and satisfied with his own hijinks. <br /><br />The general film-making level is also pretty low - after the half-way mark, the pace becomes muddled and the story tiresome and evidently going nowhere and not particularly fast either. Add to that the choppy editing, average acting and Hyuck's general inability to capture true atmosphere - the empty streets of coastal town are criminally misused - and I'd file Messiah under 'missed opportunity' but still grindhouse afficionados will find enough to appreciate - even though it's not particularly gory, trashy or sleazy. | 0neg
|
This is one of those "so bad it is good" films that you always hear about but never see! Unlike Troma films which are deliberately bad and campy (and I am not amused) this one is 100% pure serious.<br /><br />However with features such as a supposedly super-lethal killer robot that prances about like one of the Solid Gold Dancers on an acid trip and a magical first mate that calls down lightning and transforms into the Good Witch of the East the fact that it takes itself seriously pushes it so far over the edge of bad that makes it full circle around back to entertaining.<br /><br />Watcheable enough because of that. | 0neg
|
The Deadly Wake is THE PERFECT MOVIE for film students... to learn how NOT to make a film!<br /><br />Let's see... what did the crew mess up in this flick? Worst music mix Worst editing Worst script WORST ALL-TIME DIRECTING Worst acting Worst choreography Worst cinematography Worst props Worst sets Worst lighting Etc. Let's face it, if this "film" had been in ultra-high contrast black-and-white, AND silent... it still would have been awful. All scenes are dark (lighting people call it "black"), often, the music score drowned out the meandering dialogs, which was OK because nobody ever spoke two whole sentences without long pauses for effect. The "evil" robot was hilarious... what was that? Jazz dancing? Oh... I guess it was supposed to be walking tactically or something. I'm sure it struck fear into the hearts... of the poor editors. And, how do you edit so much footage of garbage? Not possible. Garbage is garbage, no matter how you splice it. How did anyone ever get this thru the dailys???<br /><br />Bottom line is- I couldn't stand to watch more than 15-minute segments, it was so bad... but I did see the whole thing (with lotsa breaks) just to see if it had ANY good parts in it at all. NOPE! NONE!<br /><br />A perfect example of how not to make a flick... a must see for EVERY serious film student!!! | 0neg
|
A terrible movie containing a bevy of D-list Canadian actors who seem so self-conscious about the fact they are on-camera that their performances are overly melodramatic and quite forgettable.<br /><br />This film is badly written, badly edited, and badly directed. It is disjointed, incomprehensible and bizarre - but not in a good way. McDowell does a great job with what he is given, but is the only one in this film to do so - he really has a bad story and script to work with. It's not even camp enough to be funny.<br /><br />I have yet to see Van Pelleske act in a credible manner, and even the sub-characters like Eisen (with his nasal, whiny voice) confirm that we are on a lot in Toronto rather than on a barge off Africa.<br /><br />Didn't the director see that the 'creature' looks like a jazz dancer in an alien suit? The fight between the blue bolts of lightning and Pelleske's orange wisps of 'magic' (!?! for lack of a better word), is obviously the result of bad actors, with no choreographer, overlaid with completely derivative special effects. Was there even a director on set or in the editing room for this disaster film (not the good kind)? <br /><br />Learn from the mistakes of others ... don't even waste your time with this one, you'll regret it like I did. I have nothing more to say about this waste of celluloid. | 0neg
|
Terrible use of scene cuts. All continuity is lost, either by awful scripting or lethargic direction. That villainous robot... musta been a jazz dancer? Also, one of the worst sound tracks I've ever heard (monologues usually drowned out by music.) And... where'd they get their props? That ship looks like a milk carton... I did better special effects on 8mm at the age of 13!<br /><br />I'd recommend any film student should watch this flick (5 minutes at a time) so as to learn how NOT to produce a film. Or... was it the editors' fault?<br /><br />It's really too bad, because the scenario was actually a good concept... just poorly executed all the way around. (Sorry Malcom. You should have sent a "stunt double". You're too good an actor for such a stink-bomb.) | 0neg
|
If Mr Cranky had rated this, I'd be tempted just to copy his review and paste it here. But as he hasn't, I'll have to give it a go myself.<br /><br />The only thing giving this movie a 1 instead of a 0 is that Malcolm McDowall's acting is excellent. However not even he can save this film from disaster. The director must have been really distracted when he worked on this one because it is just a conglomeration of scenes that were thrown together with very little continuity - reminiscent of bad '70's movies. Even worse, both the actors and director appeared to be making it up as they went along which probably showed how bad the original script was.<br /><br />It's not even worth discussing the story line although it revolves around a futuristic corporation called the Proxate Corporation who put together a crew of dispensable people to carry a dangerous cargo on an old container/slave ship to Nigeria. This ship's computer is a baby kept in a glass jar and wired into one of the crew via USB 12 or something. The company should have been called the Prostate Corporation as the entertainment value of this movie is on a par with an examination of the same name.<br /><br />I honestly can't find one scene that I could say was well made and made any real sense in the context of the movie. I only watched it to the end as I had a touch of the bird flu and this movie reminded me that there were people out there who were actually worse off than me - Malcolm McDowall in particular. I won't hold this against him as he's a great actor and every great actor is entitled to one bad movie in their career and this one is a doosie.<br /><br />So, unless this is the only movie your shop hires out or you're male and you're doctor isn't doing prostate examinations this week and you somehow feel this is a bad thing then give this one a really wide berth unless of course if you're really community minded, buy a copy to support Malcolm and then use it as a drink coaster. | 0neg
|
Malcolm McDowell has not had too many good movies lately and this is no different. Especially designed for people who like Yellow filters on their movies. | 0neg
|
There are two reasons why I did not give a 1 to this movie. One reason are some of the actors (like Malcolm McDowell and Gwynyth Walsh) work, who tried to play at their usually good level of acting. However at many scenes they were somehow blocked by the bad scripting.<br /><br />The other reason is the cool idea and looking of the Cyborg, which is quite different to most other such roles I've seen so far.<br /><br />Everything else in this movie is as bad as it can be. Boring scenes, useless and boring dialogs, bad script work. And it seemed as it was the first movie ever for many actors. It could have been an interesting story though, but they failed completely. | 0neg
|
This is probably one of the worst movies ever made. Bad acting, bad special effects, bad plot, bad everything. In the last 15 minutes a cat suited-cyborg is introduced which muddles everything. Malcom MacDowell must have needed to make a house payment because otherwise he would have had to sell himself on Hollywood Blvd to pay the bill. I just don"t know how you can go from Clockwork Orange to this crap and be able to look yourself in the mirror each morning. I could have done better special effects in my bathtub. There's no continuity. The editor must have been asleep or on drugs its so bad. Acting. Do they have to smoke to be bad.? The gun either shoots blue flames or bullets, make up your mind. The bad girl and the other girl in the movie look so much alike that it is confusing. Whay is it called 2013 Seadly Wake. It has nothing to do with the movie | 0neg
|
This movie is absolutely pointless, one of the good esamples how Malcom McDowall never got one decent role after Clockwork Orange. This one may be one of the worst though. No story, crappy special effects, shot in 4:3/or even worse cropped on DVD, just avoid it .... | 0neg
|
Shown in Australia as 'Hydrosphere', this incredibly bad movie is SO bad that you become hypnotised and have to watch it to the end, just to see if it could get any worse... and it does! The storyline is so predictable it seems written by a high school dramatics class, the sets are pathetic but marginally better than the miniatures, and the acting is wooden.<br /><br />The infant 'muppet' seems to have been stolen from the props cupboard of 'Total Recall'. There didn't seem to be a single, original idea in the whole movie.<br /><br />I found this movie to be so bad that I laughed most of the way through.<br /><br />Malcolm McDowell should hang his head in shame. He obviously needed the money! | 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits