text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
The turgid pace of this movie numbs us to any shocks that it might provide. There was no real suspense. Most of the characters were insipid. The chesty Irish priest was as lame as the love interest. Interest is misleading. The girl that they chose to provide the film's sensuality might be better. The central conflict of the main character was uninvolving. This film is entirely devoid of positives. It is like a tedious exercise by someone who didn't want to go to the gym that day but did anyway. | 0neg
|
I shouldn't even review this movie, since it's not actually a horror movie -- and thus not worthy of Dr. Cheese's attention. At least, it's not horror in the usual sense. It's certainly a horrifying proposition to waste your time watching this crap. That's why I turned it off after the first four hours. Imagine my surprise, then, when the clock showed that only 45 minutes had passed. Yep, that's right; in plain terms, this movie is b-o-r-i-n-g.<br /><br />"The Order" had lots of flaws, not all of them unique. In particular, it seems to me the main problem with the "religious" subgenre of horror films is Hollywood's unwillingness to engage Christianity on its own terms. It is quite possible to make truly creepy films that are also orthodox. Just ask William Peter Blatty. In fact, without orthodoxy, films like this are just an anything-goes smorgasbord of the filmmakers' (usually dull and illogical) imaginations.<br /><br />Think about it. If someone made a movie ostensibly about, say, physics, but not only got the basic laws of physics wrong, but based the entire plot on its wrong portrayals, you would soon get tired of the resulting pointless plot. The same goes for these sorts of movies.<br /><br />In other words, "The Order"(and many similar movies before it) invent out of whole cloth stuff about the Catholic Church and about the Christian faith and attempt to build a plot out of these inventions. Unsurprisingly, the plot ends up being incoherent and stupid. This movie has the added charm of being as interesting to watch as your toenails growing.<br /><br />Avoid this steaming pile. | 0neg
|
What was the worst movie of 2003? "Cat in the Hat?" "Gigli?" Mais non! I propose that it was this atrocious little film from earlier in the year. Badly written, badly edited, and (if I may be so bold) badly acted, "The Order" is the black hole of film - a movie so dense not even the slightest bit of entertainment could escape from its event horizon of suck. It isn't even accidentally funny, like (for example) "Showgirls."<br /><br />You know that the producers are assuming that their audience isn't going to be very smart. They renamed the movie, originally titled "The Sin Eaters," because they figured Americans were too stupid to understand what a sin eater was, even though they go to great lengths to explain what a sin eater is in the movie. Instead, they figure an utterly generic title and a picture of Heath Ledger looking sullen are more than enough to get you in there.<br /><br />And, hey, what do you know, they were right! My ex-girlfriend saw the picture of Heath and dragged me in. Congratulations, producers, you've met your target market. She also liked "Grease II," so you're in good company.<br /><br />Back on topic, Heath plays a Catholic monk from a specific (you guessed it) order that is trying to investigate the murder of his mentor. He has celibacy issues, possibly because nobody in their right mind would believe that he knew the slightest thing about religion, much less be a celibate monk. The only other member of this order is a funny alcoholic fat guy. As much as I've wanted to see the return of the funny alcoholic to the big screen, his attempts at humor reminded me of all the dorks in my high school who did imitations of Monty Python, thinking that if they just said the lines like the Pythons did they would automatically be funny. You know the sort of people I'm talking about.<br /><br />If I utter any more, I would be in danger of generating spoilers. Frankly, the thing that spoiled this movie for me was the fact that it was created. | 0neg
|
My friends and I walked out after 15 minutes, and we weren't the first. Afterwards, we tried to get our money back. Movie theater management wouldn't allow this, but they did agree to let us see another film. The only time that worked for us was to see Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star. As you can tell, this wasn't a memorable night. Probably one of my worst movie nights. Close second has to be when I saw a double header of Domestic Disturbance and Heist. In conclusion, for the sake of humanity, please don't see The Order. | 0neg
|
This sorry excuse for a film reminded me a great deal of what I heard about "Gigli", that Ben and Jen flop earlier this Summer. "The Order" was clearly edited to such an unconscionable degree that the scenes, rather than forming a cohesive and provoking film, appeared to be a collection of disconnected sequences that did little to forward any semblance of a unified plot. Now, I'm a Heath Ledger fan ("10 Things I hate About You", "A Knight's Tale" and particularly his supporting role in "Monster's Ball"), but my man needs to find himself a better agent. Keep accepting scripts like "The Order" and "Four Feathers" and he's going to be on the fast track to movie oblivion.<br /><br />Here are the problems I had with the film. Firstly, the Director tried to make up for the inadequacies of his essential plot by introducing two other plot lines that seemingly had little if anything to do with, well, much of anything. Plot skeins involving the American trying to take over the Vatican and the Dark Pope, while mildly interesting, did nothing to reveal to the viewer anything about the main characters. The attempts to tie these threads together were pathetic at best. Secondly, please don't insult the intelligence of the viewer by inserting into the film scenes that are clearly obligatory. We had manufactured angst, manufactured love and most idiotically manufactured sex that seemed like a page right out of "Matrix Reloaded" with skull-numbing techno music. Rather than developing character, these elements seemed like the cheap devices they clearly were, a half-hearted attempt at putting popcorn-chewing adolescents in the seats. Thirdly, and most importantly, this movie seemed to ha ve an intriguing concept. We have scandal, we have religion and we have supernatural forces at play. Why then do we learn almost nothing about anyone's background? We learn a little about Alex, but even he gives up the passion of the priesthood to sleep with a woman after two days, a woman who tried to kill him during an exorcism at some point in the past. And Alex is the most developed, if you can call it that, character in the entire film.<br /><br />As the cliche goes nowadays, if you're going to see one movie this year, make sure it's not this one. There's about ten interesting minutes out of the intolerable 101 minute affair. The only thing that saved me was going with a girl who I'm rather fond of.<br /><br />1 out of 10. I'm disappointed. File this one firmly under -had potential but blew it on over editing and bad directing-. Heath my man, go back to Monster's Ball-like cameos. They really suit you. | 0neg
|
The coming attractions to "The Order" make it seem like a decent horror mystery/thriller, but what we get is a plot that has potential to be excellent all thrown together to form a pile of garbage.<br /><br />First off the whole movie consists of terrible dialogue and god awful special affects. The acting was also nothing to be proud of, but Keath Ledger (I think I spelled that right.) saved the movie in this category.<br /><br />For heaven's sake: DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE! | 0neg
|
OK, I didn't have high expectations but this film descending into depths I could not imagine.<br /><br />The plot, as it were, involved a priest of an obscure 2 member order investigating the death of the founder of the order by a Sin Eater. The Sin Eater allows for Catholics to achive salvation outside the authority of the Church and is yet another immortal in film with loads of ennui. Nevermind that this makes no sense since then a Baptist could give you salvation....we'll move on.<br /><br />I'll layout the plot w/o giving much away: the priest goes to Rome with his buddy to investogate. He brings with him a mental patient (I'm not making this up) who shot him during an excorism and who loves him (not one lick of this BTW is explained), a drunk Irish priest and Peter Weller as a Cardinal. They get to Rome, find some creepy kids who do nothing in the film, meet with a bondage gear S&M anti-pope that the drunk Irish guy knows (not explained) and who gives information by killing people (oh, BTW, he's a bad guy so he has an industrial/techno soundtrack) and then...umm, seriously, I'm not sure. the plot meanders about. Heath chills with the Sin Eater, flies to New York with the Sin Eater for an overnighter and then some other stuff happens and then (all off camera) the anti-pope falls and the film ends.<br /><br />About 1 hour into the film one really wonder if anything has happened. By the end something has happened but you can't be at all certain that it matters and since most of the drama takes place either before the movei or off-scren you're really feeling cheated. | 0neg
|
I was not entirely impressed by this film. It was originally named Sin Eater and should have stayed that way considering that is all that was talked about for the last half of the film. I'm not even sure what the first 20 minutes of the film had to do with any of the rest of it. It was very slow and what was with picking Robocop (Peter Weller) as one of the main actors. That was a sad point.<br /><br />All in all I would say check this out if you are into things dealing with the Catholic religion but don't expect an Exorcist or Stigmata from this film. It will surely flop after a few days and word gets out. | 0neg
|
The Order starts in Rome where the head of a special order of priests who deal in ghosts & demons named Brother Dominic (Francesco Carnelutti) is found dead, cut to New York City where one of his order Alex Bernier (Heath Ledger) is contacted by top-brass Cardinal Driscoll (Peter Weller) who ask's him to investigate the mysterious circumstances surrounding Dominic's death. Along with his girlfriend Mara Willims (Shannyn Sossamon) & fellow priest Thomas Garrett (Mark Addy) Alex travels to Italy to delve into his mentor's death, as the truth begins to emerge it appears that Dominic was a 'Sin Eater' someone who absorbed other's sins & lived with the burden of them so they could die peacefully & that the Church wasn't happy about his activities. Alex must do what's right even if it goes against what he believes...<br /><br />Also know under the title The Sin Eater this American German co-production was written, produced & directed by Bian Helgeland & didn't really do that much for me if I'm honest & I usually am, honest that is. Anyway lets start with the mess of a script that has some OK ideas but it's throughly predictable, excruciatingly dull & boring, really silly at times & it takes itself far too seriously. The whole concept is daft & while it thinks it's clever with it's oh so neat twist ending that ties everything up & brings the story full circle I thought it was the most obvious & lazy way to end things. There's the usual religious themes here, morality, sin, forgiveness, faith, belief, prophecy's, blah, blah, blah you know the sort of thing. Then there's the twists which aren't hard to see coming, there's the abuse of power by high ranking clergymen, corruption, greed, evil, etc. you know the sort of clichéd Hollywood ideals & themes that get reused every time it deals with the Church. The Order has nothing new to say & as a serious piece of film-making it sucks, a lot. I'm not too sure who The Order is meant to appeal to, as a die-hard horror fan I didn't see much horror in this at all, as a thriller it's less than thrilling, as a mystery it's too predictable & there's nothing here to really grip or maintain ones interest & for some reason I cannot figure out the IMDb also lists The Order as an action film which is absurd as it's as exciting & action-packed as the average episode of Sesame Street (1969 - present), harsh maybe but it's what I think...<br /><br />Director Helgeland does an OK job, the film seems to have a very soft lighting scheme & it all looks a bit drab, grayish & dull. For a supposed horror film The Order is very light on scares or horror elements, in fact there aren't any of either apart from two evil kids who can turn into a flock of birds for no apparent reason, don't ask. Forget about any gore or violence as there isn't any which is fine but it would have helped at least make The Order somewhat watchable. According the IMDb's 'Trivia' section the release date of The Order was put back so some of the special effects could be improved because they looked unintentionally funny, all I can say is judging by the finished film the effects must have been really bad to start with because they aren't exactly brilliant as it stands now.<br /><br />I was amazed to see The Order had a budget of about $28,000,000 which is a hell of a lot of money & I just can't see where it all went apart from the sets & production design which are good. The whole film looks & feels very average & utterly forgettable. The acting is OK although the annoying fat guy who seems to be some sort of foul-mouthed comic relief irritates, a good actor such as Peter Weller deserves better than this.<br /><br />The Order, I prefer the title The Sin Eater actually not that it matters too much, misses all of it's intended targets by the proverbial mile as far as I'm concerned & is a pretty dull way to waste 100 odd minutes of your life so don't do it! Not recommended. | 0neg
|
First of all, I have to say I have worked for blockbuster and have seen quite a few movies to the point its tough for me to find something I haven't seen. Taking this into account, I want everyone to know that this movie was by far the worst film ever made, it made me pine for Gigli, My Boss's Daughter, and any other piece of junk you've ever seen. BeLyt must be out of his mind, I've only found one person who liked it and even they couldn't tell me what the movie was about. If you are able to decipher this movie and are able to tell me what it was about you have to either be the writer or a fortune teller because there's any other way a person could figure this crap out.<br /><br />FOR THE LOVE OF G-D STAY AWAY! | 0neg
|
Always enjoy great films which deal with the super-natural and the deep thoughts of the Spiritual world. However, this film just turned me off as far as its production and direction. There is nothing to go into deep discussion about what this story has to tell; all I can say is that it was a big waste of time and effort to put it on the big screen. The actors, namely: Mark Addy, Thomas Garrett, gave an outstanding performance in his native land England, and we have seen him in "Still Standing" a TV Series. Heath Ledger, played the real wicked dude and we have recently viewed him in "Brokeback Mountain",'05, gave a great supporting role. Shannyn Sossaman, (Mara Sinclair), did a good job of seducing a priest from a church not recognized by any faith. Don't waste your time, you will be sorry! | 0neg
|
This really is the worst film I have ever seen. Ever. Period. I actually paid £3.50 to watch this steaming turd of a movie. Incredibly dull, poorly acted, dire script, often incoherent and too many scenes that don't seem to have any relevance to the overall film (like when Heath Ledger's priest partner get's nailed to a wall by a ghost...what was the point in that scene? answers on a postcard please...)<br /><br />I should have got a medal for sticking with this film for it's entire running time. I would rather take a strong kick to the groin than sit through this film again.<br /><br />This should be cast into IMDb's bottom 100. Hopefully my vote of 1/10 will help it on it's way. | 0neg
|
The orders fatal flaw-besides an asinine plot-is that the character's simply don't resonate or even react.<br /><br />Two examples: A priest, walking through a graveyard late at night, is suddenly attacked by ghostly spirits. After fighting them off, he calmly resumes his walk when his buddy come up. "Anything wrong?" His buddy asks, having seen the attack. "Just some demonic spirits-nothing I couldn't handle." No reaction, no surprise, just like he'd changed a tire. His buddy is equally unconcerned... must be standard priest training... ["And then you put the wafer into their mouths. Any questions? Ok, moving on, Demon Spirit attacks..."]<br /><br />Example two: At one point the priests need an answer to a question, and only a demon (or something, who cared by now) could provide it. How? Why, you have to ask a dying man! So the demon has some random person hung in front of the two priests so they can ask their question to the thrashing, gasping man. "Hey, don't kill him!" or maybe "That's not nice!" would have been more realistic then their response. They never ask that they let the man go or stop-in fact, the closest to reacting they get is mild annoyance. They ask their question and go.<br /><br />I had to shut it off at that point-my brain was starting to atrophy.<br /><br />Avoid<br /><br />* / **** (one star out of four)<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
I wanted to watch this movie, but one bizarre ridiculous scene after another forced me to shut it off. Character's don't seem to react to anything. Consider this: Heath Ledger is walking a night (through a cemetery I believe) when he is attacked by spirits, which he drives away. Once past this ordeal he calmly walks away and meets up with a friend that saw it all. When asked what happen he says blandly "attacked by demons, nothing serious.", as if this is only a little more exciting than a flat tire.<br /><br />I shut it off when they go to ask something-a demon or something, I stopped caring-a ques ion. The answer can only be rented out of someone with the energy of their death, and the priest watch in what appears to be vague annoyance as a man is strung up and hung and they ask his thrashing, dying body question.<br /><br />0 out of **** stars. | 0neg
|
Yes, MTV there really is a way to market Daria. What started as a clever teenage angst-"comment on everything that sucks and make the viewer feel better about their sucky teenage life" sitcom now mutated into a "how you should deal with your problems"-charade. I used to watch Daria all the time and loved it. Now, sitting here after watching the so called "movie" I can only wonder what the point of this all was. Daria tells us how to lead out life in college? Excuse me? didn't the point Daria made every episode that what you like to do is ok, as long as it is ok with yourself no matter what the rest of the sick sad world thinks of it? This entire thing reminded me of the scene in "Reality Bites" the movie channel shows the documentry for the first time. | 0neg
|
This is a truly terrible film.<br /><br />I'm only writing this so that some people somewhere are put off watching it. If I have stopped one person from wasting some of their precious life watching this film I shall die happy.<br /><br />Unutterably dull, although since it stars Al Pacino I was fooled into thinking that at any moment something interesting was going to happen. Then the credits rolled, and I realised I had been completely fooled into watching this unbelievable drivel.<br /><br />I cannot believe that this film has achieved as high a score as it has at IMDb (over 5 stars when I last saw the voting). Are you people voting ironically?<br /><br />Please, please, please do not watch this film! | 0neg
|
"People I Know" is a clunker with no one to root for and no one to care about -- despite the game efforts of a talented cast.<br /><br />Pacino delivers his usual tour de force as Eli Wurman, a past-his-prime publicity agent hollowed out by a lifetime of moral corruption. But unlike Michael Corleone, it's impossible to have an emotional investment in this character, his dilemma, or his fate.<br /><br />The film traces Eli's preparations for a benefit for a liberal political cause, while distracted by a client's (Ryan O'Neal, good in an underwritten part) latest "dirty laundry" -- in this case, a TV actress companion who's gotten involved with the wrong people. Tea Leoni brings her customary star power to this supporting role, although again, the script doesn't give her much to work with. As Eli's sister-in-law, Kim Basinger manages to evoke sympathy despite implausible plot mechanics.<br /><br />This movie is strictly for those who like watching Pacino strut his stuff, and enjoy the other principals. Unfortunately, between the script and direction, "People I Know" is strictly amateurish. Hence its limited theatrical release, and speedy journey to DVD. Consider yourself warned. | 0neg
|
Very silly movie, filled with stupid one liners and Jewish references thru out. It was a serious movie but could not be taken seriously. A familiar movie plot...Being at the wrong place at the wrong time. An atrocious subplot, involving Kim Bassinger. Very robotic and too regimented. I have noticed that Al Pacinos acting abilities seem to be going downhill. A troubleshooter with troubles , but nothing more troubling than Pacinos horrible Atlanta accent. Damage control needs to fix this damage of a film. OK my one liners are bad, but not as bad as the ones in this film. This movie manages to not only be boring but revolting as well. Usually a revolting film is watchable for the wrong reasons. This movie is unwatchable. I did manage to sit through this. The plot ,if written a tad bit better, with , perhaps a little better acting and eliminating the horrendous subplot,and even dumber jokes, could have pulled this thriller out of the doldrums. What we are left with is a dull, silly movie that made sure it was drilled into our heads that Eli Wurman was Jewish. An embarrassment to all the good Jewish folk everywhere. | 0neg
|
The movie is about two stories: one is a political murder of a call-girl, the other an upper-class political party. The crossing point is the public relation character played by Al Paccino, as he is the witness of the crime and the instigator of the evening.<br /><br />If the script is terrible without any decent dialogs and the directing void of any sense of drama, the performance of Al is memorable: how many fellows can be as much convincing as a powerful and feared man (as "The Godfather") as here as a little servant (see also "Donnie Brasco").<br /><br />Actually, the big young lion has become a tired old one. This passing of ages is very moving, because it makes the audience ponders about getting old too.<br /><br />But his slowness is only a make-up because he can get back his energy in Church scene.<br /><br />Maybe it is a good thing that the movie is so awful because it put the starlight on Al's talent! | 0neg
|
The only good thing about "People I Know" is that it serves as a perfect example of movies that Al Pacino should avoid performing in. The first big turn-off I had was the way in which Pacino tried to portray a Georgia accent; at times it was weak and unattractive while in other segments it seemed too overdone. Dialogue and character interaction was terrible along with a weak plot. The supporting cast did an extremely perfunctory job in keeping the movie interesting, and within an hour I still saw no signs of a sturdy plot. The story overall is a real bore, and I had to slap myself in the face a few times to keep myself awake.<br /><br />This movie will surely bore you as well...avoid at all costs. | 0neg
|
Much as we all love Al Pacino, it was painful to see him in this movie. A publicity hack at the grubby ending of what seems to have once been a distinguished and idealistic career Pacino plays his part looking like an unmade bed and assaulting everyone with a totally bogus and inconsistent southern accent.<br /><br />The plot spools out this way and that with so many loose ends and improbabilities that the mind reels (and then retreats).<br /><br />Kim Basinger is there, not doing much. Her scenes with Pacino are flat and unconvincing. Hard to believe they meant a lot to each other. There's no energy there.<br /><br />Tea Leone, on the other hand, lit up the screen. She was electric and her scenes with Pacino were by far the most interesting in the movie, but not enough to save Al from embarrassment. | 0neg
|
Firstly,I must admit that it isn't a good movie. And,I would never watch this movie if Pacino wasn't in it.<br /><br />The movie is about a publicist's strange 24 hours.And he is overworked,dizzy,sick and sometimes regretful.I don't like the character at all.It's really boring,after 20 minutes you may fall asleep.And I don't understand why Pacino wanted to be a part of this horrible movie.Just because of money or what?<br /><br />Since I'm an avid Pacino fan,I bought this 2002 movie People I Know.If you haven't bought it yet,don't even think about it,it's just a waste of time. | 0neg
|
In what seemed like the longest 1hour 35 I've had to endure in a long time, Al Pacino delivers an accurate performace to be sure. Not his usual typecasting, which was nice. But his character was just truely pathetic. Someone to pitty as he stumbles around forgetting appointments as we realise that the Hollywood social life has drained him of his life energy. But in this movie we needed someone to like. And for some reason, every character in the picture said "I don't know why I like you, Eli" to Al Pacino's chracter and I couldn't even come close to liking him.<br /><br />All the other actors played their usual styles. Tea Leoni, Richard Schiff, and Bill Nunn did nothing to change their established personas developed on TV or in earlier films. And Kim Basinger wasn't even in the film long enough to deliver a performance of any kind.<br /><br />The movie's story had no momentum. Most scenes never driving the story forward, but rather just collecting factoids about characters which later came into play in an anti-climactic ending. It had potential except for their unwillingness to build upon the story.<br /><br />Whats the point of the film? Daniel Algrant and Jon Robin Baitz would have you believe "Once Hollywood has you, you can't get out." Yeah right! And that's why so many people get fired in Hollywood. | 0neg
|
Saw this movie in an early preview, and I cannot stress enough how bad I thought this film was. From the very beginning, the audience was groaning over Pacino's awful southern accent. Poor Al looked really, really haggard, and I can't decide whether this was purposely part of his role as a drug addicted publicist, or perhaps he just didn't get any sleep before coming to the set. Much worse than Pacino's close ups, however, is the wretched excuse for a plot. Early in the film we are given indications that Pacino's character is gay, and I suspect that is what the screenwriter had originally intended. Later, however, we are supposed to suspend our incredulity and believe that both Tea Leoni and Kim Basinger (both of whom are sleepwalking through lame roles) lust after this elderly, half dead looking, effeminate man with the ridiculous accent. The worst part overall was the main plot thread, which had to do with some corporate espionage that is never fully explained and we never, ever care about in the slightest. Because this was a preview I will reserve my final judgment, because of the possibility of re-shoots and editing, but you can bet I will not pay a cent to see this in theaters. | 0neg
|
Unless somebody enlightens me, I really have no idea what this movie is about. It looks like a picture with a message but it´s far from it. This movie tells pointless story of a New York press agent and about his problems. And, that´s basically all. When that agent is played by Pacino, one must think that it must be something important. But it takes no hard thinking to figure out how meaningless and dull this movie is. To one of the best actors in the world, Al Pacino, this is the second movie of the year (the other is "Simone") that deserves the title "the most boring and the most pointless motion picture of the year". So, what´s going on, Al? | 0neg
|
Al Pacino? Kim Basinger? Tea Leoni? Ryan O'Neal? Richard Schiff? My mouth was watering. I dropped everything to watch this movie on Cable. 30 minutes in I was having trouble staying awake. 60 minutes in and I hit the record button and fell asleep. Finished watching it the next morning. Shouldn't have bothered. What a waste of a great cast and an idea that could have been an interesting story of a "Day in the Life..." Cure your insomnia if you have it and watch this movie. I guarantee you at least an hour and a half of uninterrupted sleep. Dialogue horrible. Continuity non-existent. Camera work could have been done with a hand held Super 8 and looked better. <br /><br />This movie was a total disaster. | 0neg
|
If it wasn't for the bad dialogues and script. I mean, the direction was really in touch with it's subject. The actors were doing good at bringing their characters to life. But in the end, the thing that was really missing was a solid script to hold all the pieces together. I would highly suggest not to watch this. Unless you're a Al Pacino enthusiast like I am and will watch everything he is playing in. Even if the result lately are rather poor. This is, after S1m0ne, a second very bad movie for this actor that once knew how to choose roles. | 0neg
|
2002's undeservedly popular "I Love the 80's" is an inane, idiotic, offensive and downright disgusting pop-culture mess of a show that was the first in a long-line of horrid television programming that ultimately spelled out the end of VH1, which was at one time the only real music-oriented channel left on TV! I used to practically live on VH1 up until the spring or winter, I forget which one now, of 2002 when garbage like this started to appear for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Out of sheer morbid curiosity (I'd guess that's what you'd call it) I had decided that I would go ahead and give it a look-see anyhow the first night it came on even though the advertisements looked like complete crap. At least I can honestly say that I wasn't a bit disappointed by it because my expectations were obviously bottom basement-level to begin with. The emphasis of this show I found out within the first 5 minutes was less on each year of the 1980's and what was and wasn't culturally significant or popular (which is what I was expecting to see), but instead more of an impromptu platform for a whole slew of really god-awful no-name comedians to display what they more than likely think is their comedic skills *rolls eyes*...more like lack-thereof if you ask me! It's pretty easy now to see why no one had ever heard of any of these idiots before they appeared on this show because they are all so terribly unfunny and pathetic in their attempts at so-called "humor" that I swear I could feel my intestines knot up with each and every rancid one-liner they shot off one after another! Altogether, I have no problem in saying that "I Love the 80's" was/is trash of the lowest denominator, and one of the main reasons why I almost never watch VH1 anymore. | 0neg
|
Very much a film from the times -- extremely long sequences with no dialogue, bad flashbacks, and an almost entirely male cast. The two women who appear have a total of under 10 lines and exist only as romantic interests for men.<br /><br />O'Toole is riveting whenever he speaks; unfortunately, he spends much of his time peering through shrubbery. Alastair Sims is always a joy to see but he, too, is terribly underused.<br /><br />The film has one additional positive aspect, in that it depicts many aspects of British fascism and fascist sympathies (such as the casual appearance of the Mosley graffiti) that many people today are unaware of. Too many of today's films about WWII paint the Allies as all-good and the Axis as all-evil, when history tells us people are far more complicated than that!<br /><br />This would be a good movie for when you're recovering from the flu and are bundled on the couch and not able to absorb anything too complex. If you just need something to pass the time while your electrolytes stabilize, this is the movie for you. | 0neg
|
There is a reason why this made for British TV movie only appeared at the 1977 Toronto Film Festival. It is dull, plodding and lacking in suspense.<br /><br />Peter OÕTooleÕs diffident performance and the appearance of playwright Harold Pinter are the only elements of interest.<br /><br />Note : Some British film fans will enjoy seeing Philip Jackson, best known for his portrayal of Inspector Japp in the Poirot television series, in one of his earliest roles.... | 0neg
|
Are you kidding me?! A show highlighting someone who opens cans and envelopes for a meal? How talented do you have to be to do this? She MAY be able to cook but it is NOT portrayed in this half-hour stomach churning painful production. I know she has a Martha-Stewart-esquire empire. So does Warren Buffett but I don't see him with fake knockers opening cans of cream corn and Alpo.<br /><br />She has a nephew named...Brycer. Brycer? Stop talking about anyone a name that stupid.<br /><br />More time is spent on "table-scapes" than actual cooking. Who has that kind of time?! Silicon should be on your spatula, not on my TV. This show should be on Cartoon Network, NOT Food Network. | 0neg
|
- A Mexican priest becomes a wrestler to save an orphanage or something -<br /><br />I went to see this movie because it was about non-WWF wrestling and so I thought it might be funny. It wasn't. It is excruciating to watch. Embarrassing. Any and every opportunity for comedy is mercilessly squandered. <br /><br />I admit I don't like Jack Black anyway. After this I have been racking my brain to think of one good role that he has performed. The only thing I can come up with where he was o.k. was as a necessary foil to the John Cusack character in 'High Fidelity'. Jack Black is one of those awful relentless flat-out ham-it-up knockabout guys (like the little fat one in Abbot & Costello or Jerry Lewis) who should be told that being overbearingly idiotic is not the same thing as being funny. <br /><br />It is not even slapstick. It's just irritating. It's not even stoopid, it's just stupid.<br /><br />I heard good things about Napoleon Dynamite too, but if this is anything to go by I wont be rushing out to find it on DVD. | 0neg
|
Jack Black can usually make me snicker simply by breathing, but in this movie...<br /><br />Besides the direction, writing, lack of plot, constant mugging (aided and abetted by constant straight-on camera shots), and a .050 joke batting average, it was still an utter waste of time. The idea sounds promising, but what potential there was gets wasted with an utter lack of comedy and some of the worst direction I've seen this side of you-tube.<br /><br />I kept hearing that this film portrayed Mexicans very negatively. While that's no doubt true, I really don't think this movie is meant to be racist. I think that's it's more a result of a "creative" team desperately trying to find something funny in this mess. You can almost hear them crying out from behind the camera: "Hey look, it's an ugly Mexican! Laugh, people! Please, for the love of all things tenacious, LAUGH!"<br /><br />But put the racism charges aside. When you get down to it, it's anyone who plunked down good money and time to watch this pile of leftover refried beans that should be offended, IMO. | 0neg
|
I'm sure deep in the recesses of Jack Blacks mind the character of Nacho Libre is absolutely hilarious but no it isn't. You can tell ol Jacks having a whale of a time hammin it up playing a smarmy, slimy Mexican friar with dreams of becoming a wrestler but this movie is a total misfire in just about every single department.<br /><br />I just sat there through most of the movie thinking "Is this supposed to be funny" and "This is the guy from Tenacious D right?". The truth is this film has NOTHING to offer. AT ALL! It's a lousy script with crappy characters and really naff acting and direction. You'll watch endless moments where you think something funny is surely about to happen but it just doesn't. I was bored stupid about 10 minutes in but though it would surely pick up. It didn't. 90 minutes later I'd barely managed to stave off an aneurism it was that painful.<br /><br />It's like, remember years ago when you'd see anything with your fave actor in it, even some of their really early pap from before they were famous, and you'd be really embarrassed that said actor was actually in such a load of plop. Yeah it's like that.<br /><br />I've enjoyed some of Jack Black's earlier movies like Shallow Hall and I'm really looking forward to seeing Pick of Destiny but come on man. If you do this to us again Jack I'm gonna have to come round there and hammer your kneecaps or something. At the least give you a serious talking to.<br /><br />I know it's a cliché but this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and for so many reasons.... | 0neg
|
I mean, really... either i suddenly lost my sense of humor or this is just a really bad movie. It's stupid, ridiculous and just not funny AT ALL.<br /><br />Since i saw the preview i knew it wasn't going to be a great movie, i just didn't think it was gonna be that bad...<br /><br />What happened to the good old times when you could find clever funny lines at any movie? When the actors didn't have to play ridiculous roles in attempt to be funny?. Now we find ourselves with movies like this one, Borat, Little Men, Scary Movie 4 where i could not find the funny parts!!<br /><br />Just skip this piece of garbage<br /><br />P.S. (sorry for my English) | 0neg
|
What a disappointment!<br /><br />This film seemed to be trying to copy 'cutting edge' comedy but the direction and the script was sloppy, sickly and sentimental in the worst film tradition. Jack Black's acting/role was self-indulgent and self-regarding... and the other characters were equally unmasking and uninteresting. The soundtrack was tedious. We are ( WERE) fans of Black but none of us did more than mange a forced titter for the duration. Why did he feel he needed to make this mistake?<br /><br />We will not watch another of his films without reading reviews more carefully first!!<br /><br />Was he drunk when he read the script before signing up for this drivel? | 0neg
|
We loved School of Rock and Jack Black. We couldn't wait to go and see this movie. It was the only time in my life the movie was so bad I wanted to walk out. My husband hated it too. The only funny parts were in the trailers. My husband and I wanted to stand outside the movie theater and tell people to save their money. The writing was awful. It had every terrible stereotype of Hispanic people who should be utterly offended. The movie wasn't that long but to us it seemed like an eternity. The people in the theater were so restless and silent it was like watching paint dry. I made my husband stay because I was sure there would maybe be some redeeming parts, but there weren't. Save you money and your time. | 0neg
|
Jack Black is an annoying character.This is an annoying indie movie for 14 year olds.Do I have to write eight more lines?Ana de la Reguera is dang fine to look at,as a Mexican nun who puts up with the rather forward and rude advances of Jack Black.This movie is a PG 13 version of an indie film.I really like a movie that has the courage to explore Mexican culture.This movie explores Mexican culture-deeply. I just choke on its cultural rudeness:Jack Black is just so rude. A white person like Jack Black is not my most valuable emissary into Mexican culture, as it were.Mexican Wrestling culture is not the most diaphanous venue a white guy, such as myself could seek.I suspect Mexico is more culturally opaque than Jack Black has presented here.<br /><br />I think IMDb changed my review.Has anyone else had his review changed as well?Just a question. | 0neg
|
"Nacho Libre" (2006) <br /><br />Directed By: Jared Hess <br /><br />Starring: Jack Black, Ana de la Reguera, Héctor Jiménez, & Darius Rose <br /><br />MPAA Rating: "PG-13" (for some rough action, and crude humor including dialog) <br /><br />Say what you will about it (I know some people who despise it to no end), but I have always thought that "Napoleon Dynamite" was a funny movie--not the brightest brick on the wall, but a funny movie, nonetheless. Jack Black is also a very funny man--irritating at times, yes, and massively overrated by adolescent audiences who practically worship him, but funny. There has rarely been a Jack Black comedy that I did not enjoy to some degree. So, I was very happy to hear that Jared Hess, the writer and director of "Napoleon Dynamite", and Jack Black would be teaming up for a movie about a Spanish friar who becomes a wrestler to save an orphanage. My only reservation was that the plot seemed a little too thin. Unfortunately, my one reservation turned out to be downfall of the entire movie. This plot, had it been done as a skit on some such show as "Saturday Night Live" or possibly even "Mad TV", would have worked flawlessly. Unfortunately, the plot runs far too thin over the approximate one and a half hour runtime and this one-joke comedy falls flat.<br /><br />Nacho was raised in a Mexican monastery and became a devout man of the Lord. Feeling shunned by the entire monastery, Nacho (Black), now the monastery's cook, decides to follow his dreams to become a professional wrestler. As the monastery's finances hit an all-time low, Nacho decides to join a wresting tournament so that he can win the prize money and provide good food for the monastery's orphanage. This plot sounds so sweet and caring. It seems like the perfect movie for Jack Black. Look what he did with "School of Rock" after all. Well, to my displeasure, this plot is almost completely ruined by offensive and gross humor that just takes away from the heart of the movie. It is again Hollywood's way of showing that they feel that teen audiences will only understand fart jokes and stupid humor
of course, for all I know, maybe that is the general thought of teenagers, as many seemed to enjoy this movie. Watching an obese woman scurry like a mouse across the floor will certainly make people laugh, but don't expect to get an award for putting it in your movie. A seven-year-old could make up the same joke.<br /><br />The performances in "Nacho Libre" are actually good. Jack Black proves once again that he is absolutely hilarious and that he can make even the most idiotic, worthless lines in ever put on paper comical. Unfortunately, this movie just wasn't enough for him. It didn't give him anything to go on and the only reason any of his jokes worked was because of him. I had never seen or heard of Ana de la Reguera before, but now I can say that, not only is she quite talented, but she is also one of the most beautiful women to have ever graced my eyesight. She just clicked in the role and it worked wonderfully well. Héctor Jiménez, who plays Nacho's bumbling partner, Esqueleto, kept me laughing continuously. He did a very nice job and it was very effective when partnered with that of Jack Black's. Darius Rose, who plays an orphan named Chancho, didn't have many lines, but, what can I say, I just enjoyed him. He was adorable. The rest of the cast did their job. It is unfortunate that they were wasted on such a sub-par movie.<br /><br />"Nacho Libre" just does not work. Its plot is stretched far too thin. The heart of it all is soiled by moronic humor and sickening jokes that just don't work. I very rarely laughed and, if I did, it was because of Jack Black or another member of the cast. And that leads me to the bright side of "Nacho Libre": yes, the cast. This cast was just
well, for lack of a better word, they were on. They all clicked, had excellent chemistry together, and pumped as much life as possible into the flat script. After Jared Hess's "Napoleon Dynamite" kept me thoroughly entertained for the entirety of the movie, I was surprised to find myself so often bored with "Nacho Libre". Something was lost here and I have yet to understand what it was. All I know is that "Nacho Libre" is not a good movie and yet, because of its cast, it is completely worthless. There is a small reason to watch, if only to watch Jack Black work. But, if you are not a fan of Jack Black, then avoid this movie like the plague. I like Black, but I am done with this movie and with this review.<br /><br />Final Thought: Yikes! This is Jared Hess's surprisingly disappointing follow-up to his hysterical "Napoleon Dynamite".<br /><br />Overall Rating: 4/10 (C+) | 0neg
|
This kind of "inspirational" saccharine is enough to make you sick. It telegraphs its sentiments like the biggest semaphore on earth. It removes from the audience its own interpretation and feeling by making the choices for it. The big finish is swimming in weeping orchestration that must supposed to work like jumper cables on a dead car; I guess you'd need such prompting to feel if you're stupid enough to watch a film as simple-minded and sappy as this. Streep glows and you wonder if she really has the depth of feeling on display or if it's just that---a display, switched on and off like a light. Because I can't for the life of me see how she could possibly find life in such a dud of film. Even though it's based on a true story, and an inspirational one at that I'm sure, the set-up, execution and performances play like a third-rate TV movie or half-witted high school drama. | 0neg
|
I saw this movie at a 'sneak preview' and i must honestly confess that I do not like films with Meryl Streep that much. This picture was the worst. Half the theatre did not return after the break halfway the film. I couldnt blame them, if this wasn't a true story there had been absolutely no need for the second half of the picture. Just before the film goes forward in time about ten years I myself was expecting the credits to appear. | 0neg
|
What a horrible, horrible film. The worst collection of cliches I have seen in a long time. Not that I saw much. I left the theatre screaming after about 40 minutes in search of a stiff drink to soothe my nerves. Meryl Streep was awful as usual. How many hurt and tortured expressions can 1 person have? Aidan Quinn's talents were - as so often - totally wasted. And who told Gloria Estefan she could act? Trying to be polically correct this movie still enforces racial stereotypes. (Brave inexperienced lonely music teacher teaches underprivilegded kids violin in poor neighbourhood school). The kids weren't even cute! Just written in to suit the appalling script. Aaargh! Wes Craven really made me cringe for once. real horror this one! | 0neg
|
Hip. Erotic. Wickedly sexy ... whatever. It's "The Terminator" with werewolves.<br /><br />No, seriously. The cop saves the girl (waitress!) from the big monster and refers to himself as her 'protector'. The lead actor Ryan Alosio does a pretty good job of emulating Kyle Reese ... there's a massacre in a police precinct ... the bad guy is muscular with red eyes ... and it even contains dialogue along the lines of "You said it yourself, he won't ever stop. Never." The dire script comes from a first-time screenwriter who, thank God, hasn't sold anything since this, and it's all thrown together by famously bad director Richard Friedman.<br /><br />The movie opens in a strip bar (always a good sign), and a mean-looking biker guy bursts in for no apparent reason, pursued by three cops. One of them is black, and (shock horror!) he's the one who gets killed in the first five minutes. The film goes downhill for the next hour or so, then picks up a little with some decent action sequences, before rounding it all up with an abysmal ending.<br /><br />For the most part, the cast come across as competent actors doing what they can with a bad script and a director who's willing to settle for less. If nothing else they appear to be learning how to act in this movie and Alosio, along with some of the supporting cast, shows signs of talent. DarkWolf in his human form is played by gargantuan Kane Hodder -- famous for his numerous portrayals of Jason Vorhees in the 'Friday the 13th' movies. He's decent enough, especially considering he isn't used to speaking roles.<br /><br />It's become famous amongst groups of horny teenage boys for the lesbian rooftop scene between Andrea Bogart and Sasha Williams, who gets her kit off a couple of times in the grand tradition of former 'Power Rangers' actresses. And it's unnervingly clear that the editor spent WAY too much time on that scene ... anyway, the main redeeming feature is that the physical werewolf effects are rather good, and the design of the wolf isn't bad at all.But the CGI is bad. Just plain bad. I mean seriously, if you can't reach some level of realism - why bother? Just throw a little extra money into the make-up! Aside from the terrible script, this movie does have it's moments, many of which are unintentionally funny. It's good for a laugh if you don't have anything better to do, but just don't spend any money on it. Please. | 0neg
|
Dark Wolf (Quick Review) Let's get right to it: This is a repugnant piece of rotting roadkill with cow sh*t on it. It's just an awful movie. It's an urban werewolf movie with some of the worst acting imaginable and a story as weak as any gangly nerd from an 80's high school drama film. What's worse is that poor Kane Hodder was duped into playing the gigantic evil werewolf. Kane f*cking Hodder. Someone's trying to ensure that playing Jason Voorhees is the height of his film career...<br /><br />Anyway, former Playmate Jaime Bergman is also in the movie and she eventually becomes a werewolf, too. It's kind of a crappy cop drama with the world's worst looking werewolf in it. But it does have moments of near-rampant nudity. But that's about all. Want to know more? Okay, the werewolf is generally an ugly-looking black blur zipping around the screen. And when we're privileged enough to actually see a transformation sequence, we're presented with something that resembles a full-motion video from a video game made during the early stages of the Playstation. The first Playstation. The CG animation is really that primitive. Only good for horror hardcore fanatics that want to see small moments of nudity surrounded by rampant visual vomit. 2/10<br /><br />www.ResidentHazard.com | 0neg
|
The only reason I even watched this was because I found it at my local library (and will berate them mercilessly for having wasted public monies on it), and despite the plethora of tits and ass, it didn't take long to realize that the fast-forward button was my friend. Terrible direction, pedestrian camera work, sporadically bad-to-nearly-passable acting, chintzy effects, and one of the worst screenplays I've had the displeasure of seeing brought to life (such as it was, horribly crippled and mutilated) in a long, long time. Best laughs actually come from the "Making of..." featurette, in which the poor saps involved with this HDV mess attempt to justify their lame efforts as if they had been working on something special, instead of something that won't be utterly forgotten next week. Wait! Except for the fact that somehow someone lured Tippi "The Birds" Hedren, of all people, into doing a bit part, along with Kane "Friday the 13th" Hodder! How this came to pass, I'll never know, and to be honest, I don't really care. Watch at your own risk, and don't say you haven't been warned. This is film-making at its pretentious, craven worst. It only gets a 2 from me for having some good-looking naked women, and even then, just barely. | 0neg
|
This move was on TV last night. I guess as a time filler, because it sucked bad! The movie is just an excuse to show some tits and ass at the start and somewhere about half way. (Not bad tits and ass though). But the story is too ridiculous for words. The "wolf", if that is what you can call it, is hardly shown fully save his teeth. When it is fully in view, you can clearly see they had some interns working on the CGI, because the wolf runs like he's running in a treadmill, and the CGI fur looks like it's been waxed, all shiny :)<br /><br />The movie is full of gore and blood, and you can easily spot who is going to get killed/slashed/eaten next. Even if you like these kind of splatter movies you will be disappointed, they didn't do a good job at it.<br /><br />Don't even get me started on the actors... Very corny lines and the girls scream at everything about every 5 seconds. But then again, if someone asked me to do bad acting just to give me a few bucks, then hey, where do I sign up?<br /><br />Overall boring and laughable horror. | 0neg
|
Another in a long line of flicks made by people who think that knowing how to operate a camera is the same as telling a story. Within 15 minutes, the entire premise is laid out in just a few lines, so there is absolutely no mystery, which eliminates a whole facet of the suspense. The only half-way competent actor is killed 10 minutes into the film, so we're left with stupid characters running around doing stupid things. Low budget films can't afford expensive special effects, so the CGI portions are unsurprisingly unimpressive, but were at least a valid attempt. The creature suit is terrible, as seen when it falls to the sidewalk, and the director keeps emphasizing the eyes, which aren't even the red color shown in mirror shots. The dialogue is clumsy and uninspired, with some lines reminiscent of Aliens or Terminator. The last action sequence takes place in a police station, also a rip-off from Terminator, with everyone hiding in the one glass lined office that the Darkwolf doesn't smash into. In the end, the girl calls the hero "a good Protector", but he gets both his partners, the original Protector, and at least three other civilians, not to mention a dozen cops, all killed without getting a decent shot off, in spite of an arsenal of silver bullets and a submachine gun. But here's the real clincher for bad writing: They could have killed the beast right after the beginning credits when it was holding the stripper while flashing its red eyes. Instead, they took it into custody?!? | 0neg
|
Why bother seeing this movie, if you have great movies to see. It is a total waste of time and money. The movie is so bad that I felt bad for wanting to watching it. Everything in it is BAD. Actors were bad. Script was REALLY bad. The story is stupid. And the worst CGI EVER. The only good moments were the first 60 seconds of the movie in the strip club. One interesting thing that, there is a characther that we wish that he dies because, he is so stupid that we get enough of him.(I don't remember the name but was the BOYFRIEND of the "Chosen One".)<br /><br />NOTE:If you want to see a good movie, this movie isn't the right choice. 0-Stars out of 10 | 0neg
|
DarkWolf tells the tale of a young waitress named Josie (Samaire Armstrong) who had been leading a pretty ordinary life until her friend Mary (Tippi Hedren) is killed by a Werewolf, you see Werewolves actually exist in modern day America & there is even a special organisation within the police force to fight the Werewolf threat headed up by Detective Steve Turley (Ryan Olosio) who has the difficult task of telling Josie that she is in fact a pure blooded Werewolf herself & that a so-called 'dark prince' Werewolf (Kane Hodder) wants to mate with her & create a new breed of pure blood Werewolves that will take over the entire world, or something like that. Understandably Josie has a hard time believing it, that is until she sees the evidence with her own eyes. It's up to Werewolf cop Steve to save Josie, the day & the world...<br /><br />Co-executive produced & directed Richard Friedman I thought DarkWolf was a pretty bad low budget shot on a digital camcorder horror film that didn't really do anything for me. The script by Geoffrey Alan Holliday starts out promisingly enough being set in a strip club with plenty of naked breasts on show & then there's a Werewolf attack which leaves someone splattered everywhere but after this decent opening sequence it's pretty much down hill all the way I'm afraid. For a start it's slow going, it's dull, it's predictable & it's populated with highly annoying character's who come out with lots of bad dialogue & do stupid things like when they have the opportunity to shoot the Werewolf they don't, I have no idea why but they prefer to just stand there instead. The script is dumb & doesn't explain itself, why has Josie never turned into a Werewolf before? Is she really the only one? Why can't this 'dark prince' find another female Werewolf? There are also lots of other things which make little or no sense like an ancient book which at fist seems quite important but is then totally forgotten about half-way through but you get the idea anyway, as a whole the film plods along in very linear fashion to a very predictable climatic showdown that is underwhelming to say the least.<br /><br />Director Friedman lights the film quite well with bright neon but this is noting new or original & doesn't really improve the film as a spectacle. Now let's talk special effects or rather the lack of them because the effects in DarkWolf are far from special, the Werewolf transformation is achieved using CGI & it's among the worst looking CGI I've ever seen, seriously a Playstation would be embarrassed about these computer graphics. It's easily the worst Werewolf transformation I've ever seen, An American Werewolf in London (1981) was made over 25 years ago yet the special effects in that are literally light-years ahead of the ones seen in DarkWolf, who says special effects have improved over the years? The animatronic puppet effects aren't much better either although at least there's something psychical on screen. The gore isn't up to much after a gory opening kill there's some blood splatter & plenty of dead bodies but not much else. Thre's a fair amount of female nudity if that's your thing but don't get too excited because you still have to sit through a terrible film to see it, is it really worth it?<br /><br />Technically DarkWolf is alright apart from possibly the worst CGI effect ever, it's reasonably well made & it at least seems to have production values. The acting is what you'd expect really.<br /><br />DarkWolf is yet another low budget piece of crap horror film that litter video shop shelves & clutter the schedules of obscure cable TV stations, I didn't think it was as bad as some but it's like saying going to the dentist is slightly more fun than going to a funeral although when all said & done they're both horrible still... | 0neg
|
I watched this film alone, in the dark, and it was full moon outside! I didn't do it in purpose, it just happened in this way. So all the elements were there for this film to scare the hell out of me!! Well, it didn't, in fact i wanted to shut off the DVD player after only 8 minutes, but i thought come on give it a chance, unfortunately i did. The acting was awful, the only one with some decent acting was Samaire Armstrong. The plot is not original, if you are a horror fan then it is just the same stuff you have seen many times before. Some scenes didn't make sense at all, and you just get the feeling that the director wanted to make the movie longer! The monster was the biggest disappointment of the movie. The (scary) scenes looked like they belong to a horror movie from the 80s when there was not enough technology, yet some good movies were made back then! I was surprised to see the name of a major production company at the beginning of the movie, i thought couldn't they put some money in this and make it decent?!! I couldn't agree more with the ratings that the movie got, it is also my rating for it, 3 out of 10. | 0neg
|
Recap: Full moon. A creature, a huge werewolf, is on the hunt. Not for flesh, not for blood (not that it seem to mind to take a bite on the way though), but for a mate. He is on the hunt for a girl. Not any girl though. The Girl. The girl that is pure (and also a werewolf, although she doesn't know it yet). Three, well check that, two cops (after the first scene) and an old bag lady is all that can stop it, or even knows that the thing killing and eating a lot of folks around full moon is a werewolf. This particular powerful werewolf, Darkwolf, is closing in on the girl. If he gets her, mankind is doomed. Now the cops has to find the girl, convince her not only that there is someone, a werewolf nonetheless, that wants to rape her, and perhaps kill her, but that she is a werewolf herself. And then they got to stop him...<br /><br />Comments: This is one for the boys, the teenage boys. A lot of scenes with semi-nude girls more or less important for the plot. Mostly less. Well I guess you need something to fill some time because the plot is (expectedly) thin. And unfortunately there is little besides the girls to help the plot from breaking. One usually turns to two main themes. Nudity. Check. And then special effects. Hmm... Well there are some things that you might call effects. They're not very special though. In fact, to be blunt, they are very bad. The movie seems to be suffering of a lack of funds. They couldn't afford clothes for some of the girls ;), and the effects are cheap. Some of the transformations between werewolf and human form, obviously done by computer, are really bad. You might overlook such things. But the Darkwolf in itself is very crude too, and you never get to see any killings. Just some mutilated corpses afterwards. And there is surprisingly little blood about, in a movie that honestly should be drenched in blood.<br /><br />I'm not sure what to say about actors and characters. Most of the times they do well, but unfortunately there are lapses were the characters (or actors) just looses it. A few of these lapses could be connected with the problems mentioned above. Like the poor effects, or the poor budget(?). That could explain why there is precious little shooting, even if the characters are armed like a small army and the target is in plain sight (and not moving). But hey, when you're in real danger, there nothing that will save your life like a good one-liner...<br /><br />Unfortunately that can't explain moments when the Cop, Steve, the only one who knows how to maybe deal with the problem, the werewolf that is, runs away, when the only things he can be sure of, is that the werewolf is coming for the girl, who is just beside him now, and that he cannot let it have her. But sure, it let the makers stretch the ending a little more...<br /><br />But I wouldn't mind seeing none of the lead actors/actresses get another try in another movie.<br /><br />Well. To give a small conclusion: Not a movie that I recommend.<br /><br />3/10 | 0neg
|
This is the prime example of low budget, winning over what would be a good story line. Let's bring back Samaire Armstrong (having seen her work on the O.C. I know she can do better), then find a better script and budget.<br /><br />The special effects were so bad, and mostly badly computer generated, that it almost lost me with the first time the wolf was seen on-screen. And Samaire Armstrong's (alert!)changing into a werewolf was done by reducing her at first to a bad GCIF figure before she even begins to change(Final Fantasy's humans, as well as Pixar's made these laughable, think of the figure as a nude Barbie Doll).<br /><br />The story of was interesting, though the idea of bloodline in werewolves is nothing new. As it also got into the balance between evil, (maybe) not so evil, and the possible end of human-kind should the two lines mate. The subplot of a "book of werewolf linage" which effected some of the other characters in a spell-like manner for a while was effective, but could have been expanded more in explaining what had happened in the past. <br /><br />Bring in a better script and direction, and I'd come back again. | 0neg
|
I have nothing to comment on this movie It is so bad that I had to put my first comment on IMDb website to help some viewers save some time and do something more interesting, instead of watching this "movie" ... anything will do, even stare at the walls is better.<br /><br />And because I have to write minimum 10 lines of text, i tell you also is a low budget movie, bad acting, no name actors, a stupid mutt as the wolf, and so on... Also the story brings nothing new, the special effects are made in the 80's style.<br /><br />The movie is almost as bad as the movie "Megalodon".<br /><br />So have fun! ;) (not watching this movie) | 0neg
|
Well, no, not really. Its not really a good movie, but its not as bad as I thought it was going to be. I really didn't feel ripped off of my rental money, and sometimes thats all you can ask for. The plot is OK, nothing brilliant or new, the acting is pretty bad, but the cast is pretty. The directing is passable, but the effects are horrible, especially the werewolf effects, which in a werewolf movie, is a pretty big problem. There was a fairly decent amount of nudity, which to me is a pretty good thing, but it wasn't all that hot. All in all, its a fairly average direct to video movie, not the worst film I've ever seen and if you're bored a genre fan, check it out sometime. I'd even watch it again.<br /><br />Bonus fact for horror geeks, Kane Hodder (Jason Vorhees in a few of them) plays the werewolf. | 0neg
|
Where to start ?! . . . I feel ... violated! Thats right, violated! I just spent 1.5hrs of my life, 1.5hrs that I could have spent doing something more useful, like watching paint dry, on this so called horror flick.<br /><br />Its not scary, its not funny, its not dramatic, its no action, its nothing...<br /><br />Its predictable, its boring, its tragic...<br /><br />I might come of a bit harsh here, but watch this movie and you will feel the same way ... or ... no, don't watch it...unless you want to feel violated also. | 0neg
|
This flick reminded me of those lame "erotic thrillers" I used to stay up late and watch on Cinemax when I was 13. I'd label this flick softer-core since there is just no simulated bump and grinder. There is, however, a ton of nudity- the opening scene is in a strip club, we see Kane Hodder's keester (or at least a stunt butt) and then an inexplicable 10 minute lesbian dance scene in the middle of the film and a nude female werewolf who looks like they mugged on of the Munster's for a costume. 13 year old boys rejoice.<br /><br />Other than that the werewolf transformation scenes have the worst CGI I've seen in years. The shots look like FMV's from the video game Resident Evil in terms of quality. The wolf is too bad to be explained and, despite the poor quality of the suit is shown way, way too many times.<br /><br />The plot and acting make no sense. There is some oddball back story about werewolves and hybrid-werewolves- the Darkwolf is the latter but from what I can tell hybrids do the same thing all werewolves do- look human, change to a wolf an kill people. The Darkwolf is trying to find a mate but oddly can't find the mate but can sniff out anyone she touches. Once more, this skills proves less than useful since the Darkwolf winds up killing several folks his target never touched, met or even saw as best I can tell. The mate doesn't know she's a werewolf and she's fighting the transformation or something.<br /><br />You'd think it'd be hard to mess up a simple monster movie s bad as this but, well they did. Want quality low-end werewolf-ism, go rent Dog soldiers want a ton of T&A this is your flick. | 0neg
|
Hi, I'm a friend of werewolf movies, and when i saw the title of Darkwolf hitting the shelves i was like "hmm, simple and nice name to it at least. Althou... i wonder why i haven't heard of it before."<br /><br />First of all, the movie starts with tits. Lots of tits. Tits are pretty much all this movies budget went to. Who cares about a werewolf effect, just pay the actresses enough to get topless shots!<br /><br />So, about the mysterious darkwolf character (a little spoilers ahead, but who really cares...) He's your average everyday biker. Not even super-tough looking, but like the old wise woman says in the movie "he is far more powerful and dangerous than you've ever faced before." Just by describing her a tattooed biker-type of a guy. Pretty original. I even had look twice when they first used the "red glowing eyes" SPECIAL EFFECT! I mean my god, that "lets-plant-red-dots-on-eyes-with-computer" effect has been used since the seventies. It looks plain ugly here! And don't get me started with the werewolf 3D-CGI. As said before, like an bad and old video game.<br /><br />And finally, as i do like werewolf films, like i said. They prettymuch always build a werewolf-legend of their own. Darkwolf does build the werewolfworld as well, about some silly legends of hybrid-werewolves and the ancient bloodline. BUT. It almost instantly after creating the rules of engagement "the darkwolf kills anyone the girl has touched" starts random-slashing. Which just doesn't make any sense, why even bother telling us the rules of killing, when they aren't even gonna play by them... Aplus the wolf-point-of-view shots are made with a sony handycam or something, filming mostly the floor and walls. Just add growling noises and you've got a super werewolf effect. The gore is partially OK. But when the wolf slashes everyone with an open hand, just by basically laying the hand on top of the victims, it just doesn't do the trick for me...<br /><br />Truly, WHO gives money to make these heaps of junk straight-to-video horrortitles, they aren't even funny-kind of bad movies, just sad. | 0neg
|
This is the absolutely worst piece of crap I've ever had to watch - actually it was so bad that I just HAD to watch it :-)<br /><br />The CGI is sooo bad it's fun! It's not even close to the shitty CGI animations in Spawn, that's how bad it is, har har har...<br /><br />I'm amazed over the fact that some distribution company actually has put money down to release this on DVD, but I guess they'll get more money out of it that way, 'cos the cost of making it can not have been more than a few hundred dollars.<br /><br />It's so awful that a kindergarten class could have made it.<br /><br />See it and laugh! | 0neg
|
Man, this movie sucked big time! I didn't even manage to see the hole thing (my girlfriend did though). Really bad acting, computer animations so bad you just laugh (woman to werewolf), strange clips, the list goes on and on. Don't know if its just me or does this movie remind you of a porn movie? And I don't mean all the naked ladys... It's something about the light or something... This could maybee become a classic just because of the bad acting and all the naked women, but not because it's an original movie white a nice plot twist. My final words are: Don't see it! It's not worth the time. If you wanna see it because the nakedness there's lots of better ones to see! | 0neg
|
I thought I was going to watch a scary movie.. and ended up laughing all the way throughout the movie. In the scene where the human transformed to a werewolf I thought they was kidding. Todays computer games have ten times better animations. Low budget, is a fitting comment. I would recommend Wolf (1994) with Jack Nicholson for a good werewolf movie. It has good special effects as they should be (human transforming to werewolf). Unless you wish to have good laugh I would not recommend you to watch this movie. This movie is a joke. | 0neg
|
There isn't much to say about this film, it is horrible.<br /><br />The acting and dialog are way far away from even decent, the story of the hybrid werewolf's is not very well explained and the whole thing has plot holes here and there.<br /><br />CGI is something you wouldn't like to see. It so amateurish that it makes me vomit.<br /><br />The only good thing on the DVD was in the Extras. The gag reel. Everything else, just waste of time and money. I hope noone will buy this, this is not even worth renting.<br /><br />Just stay away of this. | 0neg
|
Let me start by saying that I'd read a number of reviews before renting this film and kind of knew what to expect. Still, I was surprised by just how bad it was. <br /><br />I am a big werewolf fan, and have grown accustomed to forgiving a great deal when watching one. Most of them have sub-par effects, poor acting, and weak storylines (at best rehashed from earlier films). So far, with the possible exception of some of the later "Howling" series films, this is the worst of the lot.<br /><br />First, the story. It's been quoted several times in reviews on this site, so I won't go into specifics. However, it is very obvious that the writer(s) had absolutely no affinity for lycanthropic monsters. As so often happens when a horror film is given to a writer who considers themselves "above" such fare, they tried to come up with a new spin on the werewolf mythos. That's fine, but a non-horror fan trying to do this generally has disregard for the intelligence and sophistication of the horror audience and ends up writing down to them. The plot feels like a parody of werewolf films, and the events depicted just ring so false that I felt my intelligence was being seriously insulted. TV news footage, for example, never pans away from the reporter to close-up on someone in the crowd behind them. Give the characters and the viewers credit for being able to spot the bad guy in the scene without using a flashing neon sign. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.<br /><br />As for effects, I have NEVER seen a less believable werewolf. I'd have been happier with Lon Chaney Jr. in crepe hair. The beast they used look a great deal like... well, like a guy in a cheap rubber suit with some hair glued on and some truly awful animatronics. And, I know that many people have already criticized the CG, but my God it was awful. One scene features a woman changing, and starts with a completely CG version of the actress, nude but for some reason without nipples. My first thought was, "hey, why is one of the characters from 'ReBoot' turning into a silly looking werewolf?"<br /><br />Anyway, I like to look for positives in any film, and there were a few. The cinematography was passable (the film was shot all-digital, which is interesting) and some of the performances were not terrible. It was also interesting seeing Tippi Hedron as the world's most well made-up homeless woman, and Kane Hodder as the title bad guy. Also, the Yellow Power Ranger got all growed up and... well, damn. And if you're looking for skin, there's some pretty tasty examples. This ends the male-pig segment of the review.<br /><br />Overall, if you want a good werewolf film, try "An American Werewolf in London", the original "The Howling", "Dog Soldiers", or even "The Wolfen" (though that one's got more wolf than were). If you're a lycanthrope completest, then take a gander. Otherwise, give this one a miss. | 0neg
|
All the bare chested women in the world couldn't keep me from hitting the stop button about a third of the way through this awful rubbish. With the derisory acting, equally terrible script plus the poor CGI FX to match; this movie is an insult to the Werewolf genre. It is supposed to be serious, which in itself would be funny if this film could even make it to the level of being a bad joke.<br /><br />This is one of those movies where the people behind the camera are obviously competent but are too lazy to make something even one quarter decent. Avoid at all costs and watch one of the classic Werewolf movies instead.<br /><br />0 out of 10! | 0neg
|
This is only the second time I've felt compelled enough to comment at imdb about a film. The first time was for probably the best movie I've ever seen and that was for Memento.<br /><br />Seeing Darkwolf is at the other end of the scale compared to Memento, as in the worst film I've had the misfortune to see. Apart from the two scenes containing naked women there is nothing in this movie to raise it from the trash-pile that it is.<br /><br />Let's see, apalling effects, cliched script, bad acting and about 90 minutes too long. My wife and I laughed through most of it in disbelief at how bad. Amazingly I watched it to the end, how I did that I don't know! AVOID!!! | 0neg
|
When I first started watching this movie I was looking for some kind of subtle metaphors but it soon dawned on me that this movie was indeed about people on a train. The interactions between people are like those you can see any day on the street and when in occasion there is a slightly more interesting situation the dialogue becomes stilted and boring. Its not that I don't get how this film is trying to portray the way people interact, it's just that in this film they are very boring. If you want to see and analyse these kinds of relationships you'd be best to actually go out and buy a train ticket and look at the people on the train with you. It is realistic but you wouldn't go to a movie to watch a film about you sitting there watching the movie. | 0neg
|
This isn't a movie. It is a collection of unrelated, ill-conceived and poorly assembled scenes that look like the unedited results of a dim 10 year old with a mini-DV camera. In fact, I have a theory that the extremely abrasive girl in the train corridor - the one with the greasy hair, dead-pan stare, ipod and nervous tic - probably shot it herself in a creative phase.<br /><br />If you made it further than the ten minutes I did, don't bother trying to fit what you saw into the context of the European Artiste mentality praised above. This is a true and complete waste of time, money and film that would have made William One-Shot Beaudine cringe.<br /><br />The unfortunate part is that the endless series of vacuum-packed characters is representative of what now passes for much of humanity.<br /><br />What's next? Six directors shooting social intercourse at the Wal-Mart snack counter? | 0neg
|
If you like films that ramble with little plot exposition spiced with kinky sex, this film is for you. On the plus side the lead actor/actress (newcomer transsexual) does have an interesting screen presence, but not enough to add up to much more than a mildly interesting movie - if that. Essentially this film is about 3 social outcasts (transexual prostitute, male hustler, and Russian,gay immigrant) who somehow have developed a bond. Why is not clear. We are expected to accept these misfits are at the core basic honest people who have the ability to love while they hustle their bodies on the street. Right!! And Anna Nicole Smith was truly in love with her ninety something sugar daddy! The filmmaker shows a gritty, unpleasant side of life while wanting us to believe underneath it all these seriously damaged people are really quite normal to the extent they have a menage a trois which helps them through life. Quite a fantasy, but unfortunately portrayed here as real look of life on the wild side. In sum, no plot, no truth and no real reason to spend much time here. Unless of course you just like to revel in the kink!!! | 0neg
|
This story is about the romantic triangle between a nth. African male prostitute, a French transsexual prostitute (Stephanie) and a Russian waiter who speaks no French and never seems to shave.<br /><br />As a film it is dull, dreary and depressing, shot either on foggy, overcast winter days or in badly lit interiors, where everyone is bathed in a weird blue luminescence. And yes, I know, it's because the white balance was out. Everyone is pale and downcast and looks haggard, shabby and dirty. Bodies are bony and shot in such closeup that they look quite ugly and unappealing. Moles, greasy hair. Yuk. Bad news in a film where people spend a lot of time either naked or having sex.<br /><br />And the story? Well, Stephanie's mother is dying. All three characters go back to Stephanie's home village where, through a bunch of flashbacks to desolate countryside and predictably dingy interiors, we see a bit of Stephanie's childhood as a boy called Pierre. The mother dies. Well... and that's about it, really. Character development is kept to a minimum, as is the denouement of the story. <br /><br />I suppose the storyline is not linear (it would explain a lot of non sequiteurs) but really, after paying my seven euros I don't feel like having to construct the film myself: that's what the director takes my money for. To expect me to join the story telling process and get my hands dirty, so to speak, is asking way too much.<br /><br />This film is a heap of pretentious rubbish made, above all, from a desire to epater les bourgeois (ie shock the straights). I can see how it was a shoo-in for the Berlin Film Festival, and I can see why it got nowhere. | 0neg
|
Medellin is a fabulous place to live, work, and study. I've been there twice, and never did I hear anything about guerrilla activities, paramilitaries taking tourists hostage, or anything of the sort. There are "invisible police," but it is *not* a Big Brother system. There are just enough police so that they are visible in everyday life, but they do not hassle someone without good reasons.<br /><br />La Sierra is an interesting documentary in that the youths it depicts in the movie essentially become its characters. The directors of the movie carefully carve out plot lines among the daily actions of the inhabitants of La Sierra, and when a "character" dies, there is genuine pathos. It is difficult to imagine, however, that the three youths are all members of the Bloque Metro, a gang that used to terrorize La Sierra before the Colombian government began to restructure the country.<br /><br />La Sierra is not an accurate depiction of life in Colombia; there are, of course, things to be wary of such as petty crime, but when one considers pickpocketing happens in "modern" cities such as London, New York, or Tokyo, Colombia doesn't seem that different after all. Colombians are eagerly awaiting their chance to show to the world that the once war-torn country is now prospering more than ever. | 0neg
|
One of those Thank-God-I-don't-live-there documentaries. This one tells of two warring factions in Colombia, guerrillas and paramilitaries, and the surrounding peoples of Medellin.<br /><br />Guns, drugs and death run rampant. The guys, no older than 22, not in the middle of fighting a war are in jail. The girls not women, girls always react the same way when one of them is killed, with tears and screaming. You scratch your head; what did they expect, really? I don't know what's more disturbing: the nightly shoot-outs and civil unrest, or that everybody just seems to passively accept things as are. Or, seeing that boy drinking what is obviously not his first beer, being all of what, 10? If you were to take these any of these young men out of their situation and put them some place where they had the opportunity to do more, be more, how many would choose not to stay?<br /><br />Based on this documentary, all, I'm afraid. | 0neg
|
Before I start, let me say that my experience of this movie might have been influenced by the dubbing, which I gather from other comments was the original one which is considered inferior by some. So, it is entirely possible that subtitles or the apparently new DVD version would make a difference. I have also not read the corresponding book; I'm only familiar with one other Japanese manga and might be lacking cultural context.<br /><br />Potential minor spoilers ahead.<br /><br />I usually like darkly tinged science fiction stories (the likes of Blade Runner, 12 Monkeys, etc.), but I did not enjoy this movie at all. While it started out mildly intriguing, it became tedious by the time it was only half-way finished. There are all sorts of problems; let's start with what is probably the most severe: the dialogue. The characters seem unable to formulate complete sentences; if they aren't shouting each other's names for the n-th time, they are usually grunting monosyllables ("Kanedaaa!", "Tetsuoooo!", "Huh?", "Grrr", etc.). This leaves most of the characters entirely underdeveloped and two-dimensional. It doesn't help in the least that a lot of them get only a few minutes of screen time without anything interesting to say that would develop them away from the stereotypes suggested by the visuals.<br /><br />The grunting is augmented by some random pseudo-philosophical technobabble that sounds vague and uninspired even by Star Trek standards. There is nothing deep and meaningful here - it all seems haphazard, thrown together at random from various bits and pieces of stock sci-fi ideas with no coherency whatsoever.<br /><br />What little there is of an intelligible plot is no more than an excuse to begin the overlong final sequence which consists of escalating scenes of mayhem and destruction. Not that there's anything wrong with a nice bit of mayhem and destruction, of course; but in this case you'll find yourself asking "what's the point of it all, and how long until it's over". Character development in the last 30 minutes or so consists of little more than Tetsuo turning into Pizza the Hutt for no readily apparent reason.<br /><br />The ending resembles the one in 2001 - a bizarre string of images that, far from resolving or explaining anything, leave the viewer feeling he's just been looking into a kaleidoscope for two hours. I'm sure some will claim that this sort of thing is art; but to me it was just a lot of admittedly imaginative use of colour and shapes. (Some of the music was also quite interesting). Unfortunately it's all style and no substance.<br /><br />Tired of Disney? Want to watch animated movies dealing intelligently with "adult" themes? I'm sad to say you're more likely to find that sort of thing in "South Park". | 0neg
|
From around the time Europe began fighting World War II, until the war's end, Hollywood (with significant prodding from the government) made tons of movies which were designed to try and get young men to enlist in the Army, by making the life of a serviceman appear "cool." This is by far the sloppiest, implying that the life of a soldier is devoid of work, you get the best food, and you get to lie around all day listening to Ann Miller on the radio. I am far too young to have participated in WWII, but I think that there was more to it than that. There is the barest cat's whisker of a plot, and a bunch of musical numbers featuring some of the day's leading acts.<br /><br />I think that by 1943, even the most naive of civvies knew that there was more going on overseas than the wacky hijinks portrayed in this movie. While I am sure that it was meant to be viewed as escapist entertainment, I can't help but wonder if the family and loved ones of men fighting in the war, were amused or repulsed by this trivialization of their loved ones' sacrifice. | 0neg
|
This is a truly awful "B" movie. It is witless and often embarrassing. The plot, the basic "making into show business" routine, is almost nonexistent. In fact, the film is merely an excuse to push the war effort and highlight some popular music groups of 1942, including the Mills Brothers, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Bob Crosby, and Freddy Slack. Each group gets about the standard three minutes, the exception being the Mills Brothers, who for some reason warranted two numbers. Ann Miller doesn't get to dance until the last couple of minutes of the film, and she has little to do but strut her stuff amid a barrage of patriotic propaganda.<br /><br />The most interesting moment in the film, in my view, occurred in the Duke Ellington segment. The band appears to be playing in a train, standing in awkward positions. (In the deep South at the time, the band was segregated in railroad cars when traveling.) Johnny Hodges is seen next to Duke, and Harry Carney may also be identified. In the last moments of the film, trumpeter/violinist Ray Nance rushes down the aisle to the camera and does an "uncle Tom," bugging his eyes and wiggling his head the way Willy Best did in many films. For modern viewers, especially jazz fans, this homage to segregation is sad indeed. Some movies go best unseen. | 0neg
|
Anyone notice that Tommy only has 3 facial expressions.<br /><br />1. The angry eyes look he gives every enemy. 2. The holding of the hands to face, mouth agape and frightened eyes. 3. The smiling Tommy Turnbull.<br /><br />I have to say that i pretty much hate this show, i don't watch it but it's like Code Lyoko, we've all watched at least one, i must say that this show is borderline racist, uninteresting and pointless.<br /><br />every episode ends with robotboy winning, except for one exception when robotboy basically let this overly geeky freakazoid fly away on a jetpack.<br /><br />The jokes are pretty crude too, i think it's mostly people saying the word "Suck" or farting, i think the bullies of the show are quite shocking too.<br /><br />Isn't there one that hides a bowling ball under his hate, and the other uses a chain, for god sake, what kind of school is he going to. Not to mention his older brother, who is borderline psychopathic and has no other character qualities.<br /><br />The whole show i feel is ripping off megas XLR and Fosters. Like you could say the trio of coop, jamie and Kiva, as well as Robotboy being similar to Megas where he beats everyone no matter what the odds and he's free spirited despite being a robot.<br /><br />There is simply no appeal to this show, i'm surprised that it's still running. | 0neg
|
Now, I like sci-fi cartoons. However, when "Robotboy" appeared in Canada in late 2006, I watched the premiere and was inevitably appalled. The characters are generic and stereotypical (Do they REALLY need to make an African-American man wear tiger-stripe print clothing and speak in a Jamacian accent? WHY are all the Asian characters vibrant yellow and squinting? Does the mother HAVE to have big thighs and chest and constantly complain?) to the point where things become unrealistic, predictable, gross and sometimes disturbing. There are heavy similarities to, even stabs, at Astro Boy. Allow me to explain (dub names for the young): Robotboy/Astro, Kamikaze/Tenma, Constantine/Shadow, Gus/Abercrombie, Tommy/Alejo, Lola/Zoran+Kennedy, Moshimo/O'Shay, and it so on. Brief resemblances to "My Life As A Teenage Robot", "Star Wars", "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles", "Kamen Riders", "Sailor Moon" and co. are afoot. Not to mention the abundant racial/gender stereotyping. Don't even get me started on the innuendos. I'll just say they're hidden and quite dirty. But seriously. Don't even try watching this. Especially if you like Astro Boy. | 0neg
|
When I first watched Robotboy, I found it fresh and interesting, but then I noticed, that with each episode this show is trying to teach you how to behave yourself, what is good/bad. Episodes became predictable. And main characters are not interesting. Again we see a hyper-smart boy, beaten by his older brother, parents who don't understand their kid, and his friends: girl and fat boy. Also this show has no logic. A super-modern robot who works on two AA-size batteries, and can use a lot of weapons. But the biggest problem is the difference between activated and super-activated modes. We see two different robots, and it declines main idea of the show: "Robot must learn how to behave himself in human society" | 0neg
|
When I first saw a small scene of it in some announcements, I thought the show would be entertaining to watch. The little robot guy does look kinda cute. The style of animation does look sort of familiar to some classic shows. Before the show aired, I studied it through some sources. There, I did became slightly dismayed. The three children (Tommy, Gus and Lola) are voiced appropriately but Robotboy is an exception. It would have been a lot nicer if he were to be portrayed by a young lad. One good example is Robot Jones, a robot character from "Whatever Happened To Robot Jones?" The show isn't bad really. But the way Robotboy is inappropriately portrayed is my only criticism. Thus, I don't watch it much. | 0neg
|
The dudes at MST3K should see this dog of a film. It's basically about a dopey hack actor in Hollywood who can't land any acting gigs. And he has this strange obsession with the movie Taxi Driver. So what does this dumb actor do? He dyes his hair blonde and starts acting like a L.A. surfer dude in the naive hope this will get him acting roles. You'll laugh yer head off at so many of this movie's inadvertently funny scenes. Like when the actor dude's girlfriend is heart broken and sobbing and saying lines like, "How could you do this to me?" And why is she crying? Cos he dyed his hair blonde and became a surfer dude to get acting gigs. This movie makes no sense at ALL! The actor who played the governor on Benson is in this too and he plays a stereotypical right wing politician with lotsa dumb funny dialog. This movie will crack you up, trust me. You talking' to me?! | 0neg
|
ok. for starters, taxi driver is amazing. this, this is not taxi driver or amazing. what it is is bad. but i thought it was bad funny, which means that it did have some redeeming qualities. like the dialogue...wow. there was more or less no plot, the characters were all stupid, and the movie was preachy. there were some places were i thought the movie would dive into taxi driver type violence, which would have hit the message at the end of the movie on the head much harder. i can't even believe that there are like 20 other people who have seen this movie. yeah, it's worth watching if you are real bored and you want to reaffirm the fact that anyone can make a movie, or at least can try to. | 0neg
|
Despite the gravity of the subject and probably the good intentions of the filmmakers to make a film addressing white supremacy, the inconsistencies of its main character, Bronson Green, aspiring New York actor easily turned L.A. phony, makes it hard to take the story seriously. Green, who is constantly rejected by Los Angeles casting agents for being obsolete (i.e. too New York when the 80s is looking for big, blonde, and dumb), he finds success comes easily when he's willing to succumb to falsifying his image. Unfortunately, the new hair dye and pacified "surfer" attitude lands him an acting opportunity with the Jericho Church, which subscribes white supremacist teaching of the Aryan nation. Green is willing to easily forget his past, and particularly turning his back on his young black friend of ten years, in order to be the Church's new spokesman. This makes no sense, seeing as how principled our character initially is. It is this sudden, and loose change in character, coupled with an abrupt reversion back to the hardened, DeNiro-obsessed (as his Taxi Driver character) form who is able to battle the villains. A noble attempt on the filmmakers, but one that ultimately reveals itself as anything but serious.<br /><br />The other characters, too, are quite annoying and what we are forced to recognize in them comes too easily -- the psychotic paranoia of the Church leader, the self-interested actress girlfriend (the first girlfriend Bronson has when he's in L.A.), and the new blonde girlfriend who's character lacks so much development, she is, for the most part, just a walking, talking void. We are just supposed to see them in fleeting moments in which something random forces us to draw assumptions about the characters. But there is really little development of any of them.<br /><br />The other problem with this film is the ungodly amount of time the characters are involved in very little important action. Much of the beginning concerns introducing the characters, obviously, and later we see Bronson's difficulties with breaking into the L.A. acting scene and the frustrations which stem from constant rejection. But after he does willingly change his looks and personality in order to become accepted, there is at least a good twenty minutes to thirty minutes of wasted film in which very little of anything happens.<br /><br />For films that seek to draw attention to the irrational fears behind racism, this was not one done with enough credibility. | 0neg
|
You talking' to Me? (1987) is a pretty bad movie starring some dude who I have never seen before or since starring as a guy from the neighborhood who tries to become an actor. He has a heavy jones for Taxi Driver as tries to use that shtick to make it big. When he learns the hard facts of life, he does what everyone else does, changes his image! He goes from good fella to a surf's up dude over night. His friend can't believe the change (but he scores with Faith Ford and get's a cool paying gig). Can this young punk keep his street cred whilst making it big?<br /><br />This is a real lame movie that tries too hard to incorporate too many things at once. An interesting idea that falls apart due to poor execution. Who knows, maybe somebody will pick up the ball and run because the film makers fumbled the ball this time.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this movie. Unless you want to see a hot Faith Ford and a young Bubba from Forest Gump.<br /><br />xx | 0neg
|
I couldn't relate to this film. It failed to engage me either intellectually, emotionally or aesthetically. The dialogue was very dense and uninvolving. I couldn't connect with and hence care about any of the characters and I'm finding it hard to find much that's positive to say about it.<br /><br />I've read that to understand it properly one needs to be familiar with some of the more obscure aspects of Catholic theology. I'll admit that, as an atheist, I probably am unfamiliar with many of the finer details of Catholicism, but I have also seen many films dealing with religious issues that have touched me because their themes are still universal to the human condition and don't rely on specialised knowledge or beliefs. | 0neg
|
It is not obvious from viewing this film (so I recommend viewers research the people who present their case in it) but this presentation on the realities of Islam, and its encouragement of violence and intolerance against all non-Muslims is lacking objectiveness, and also completely fails to factor in the human condition. It is one thing to document that the Koran says many things about how a devout Muslim is required to interact with non-Muslims, but any realist is able to realize that not every human who feels himself or herself to be a follower of Islam, will agree with and comply with all tenets of that faith and system. There is reason to call much about the presenters into question, such that viewers need to see the presentation with a healthy skepticism; don't swallow it all, hook, line, and sinker, without some thinking of your own.<br /><br />One specific, for instance, is researching the person Walid Shoebat; who claims to be a former Muslim who perpetrated an act of terrorism in Bethlehem. There are many wise people in the world who believe neither of these assertions. I am not nor have I ever been a Muslim. I have never read the Koran. I am not a Christian, nor a member of _any_ faith. But I am an intelligent and discerning human. While the film is quite disturbing, in its presentation of how SOME Muslims view their obligation to Islam; I remind you that there is more to Islam than the views of the fundamentalists. Just as their are fundamentalists and evangelical Christians, so, too, there are variations in the intensity of belief and obligation among Jews and Muslims.<br /><br />When you watch this film, you need to have the salt shaker on hand. One grain will not be enough, you'll need more. Please use your own mind and think for yourself, research what is presented, and evaluate the state of the world and how Islam fits within it based on more than what is said in 98 minutes of video. There is a common thread of political affiliation among those who put this film together, indicating a definite bias. Be your own brain. | 0neg
|
I have been using IMDb for years and I never wanted to get involved in the commentary of movies
until now. This documentary has so many problems that I hardly know what to say. I am not a Muslim, nor am I an Islamic studies expert, but I know enough to shed some light on the obvious one-sided viewpoint that this documentary espouses. <br /><br />The problems with this movie begin with the fact that it is a documentary. Most of the documentaries that I have seen anchor themselves around a few valid points and then surround those points with debatable interpretations and misinformation. This is certainly the case with Islam: What the West Needs to Know. Yes, there are fundamentalists around the world, and some of them are Muslim, but to build a documentary about all of Islam around a small percentage of radicalized people is incredibly misleading. This is really a documentary about the fundamentalist aspects of Islam and nothing more.<br /><br />For those who would like to more objectively explore some of the issues raised in this documentary, here are several points that may help. <br /><br />There was nothing positive about Islam presented in the documentary.<br /><br />The documentary focuses on the Middle East, but more Muslims live outside of that region. More Muslims live in China, believe it or not, than in Saudi Arabia. About 40% of all Muslims live in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Indonesia.<br /><br />The translation of the Qur'an used in the documentary is a questionable one. I watched the documentary while viewing another translation and the differences were striking. I had been warned about the translation that was used in the documentary and now I know why. Surrah 98:6 is a good example. The documentary suggests that the Surrah says that disbelievers will go to hell. But the translation I have reads instead: "Those who reject Truth among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists will be in hellfire." The difference is that those who reject Truth are those people who know about God and the Truth of God and decide to reject it anyways. <br /><br />The movie mentioned that there is no morality inherent in Islam, but this is not true. Although it is true that much comes from the Qur'an and Hadith, Islam also recognizes a concept called 'Urf or "normative behavior." Obviously what is normative can be interpreted many ways, but 'Urf is meant to be "good" behavior, what an average person would consider right or wrong.<br /><br />The documentary presents Shar'ia (Islamic Law) as being one unified body of knowledge that all Muslims follow. This is simply not true. There are many Islamic schools of law and they range from progressive and modernist to fundamentalist in the way they interpret law. <br /><br />The Hadith tradition is similar. There are thousands of Hadith and each school of law accepts some and rejects others. Using the Hadith without serious scholarship to determine which ones are accurate, real and applicable, is indiscriminately picking and choosing quotations from history that fit what you want to say
which is what the documentary did.<br /><br />What I hope people realize is that fundamentalism is the problem, not Islam or any other religion. Christianity has fundamentalists that shoot abortion clinic doctors and so on. I know this is not the same as suicide bombing, just understand that the righteousness of fundamentalism is arguably the problem. If you feel you have THE answer, then everyone else must be wrong. But if you feel you have AN answer you can work together with other people's views about politics, religion, God, or whatever. | 0neg
|
The "documentary", and we use that term loosely apparently, summarizes that Muslims are trying to violently take over the world. Then states that any Muslim that doesn't admit this is either ignorant of their own faith or lying to your face! Also every person that is interviewed in the film has found a market for their ludicrous take on reality by selling claptrap to conservatives willing to let others do the thinking for them. What the West NEEDS to know is this is nothing more than propaganda aimed at mental midgets. If you are looking for an actual documentary on Islam and the current state of the Middle-East I would look elsewhere. Try something that provides multiple points of view from qualified sources. | 0neg
|
This video contains an outsmart way to confuse and manipulate Americans about Islam. It's a pity that the people who did it really believe that American people is so dumb to believe in it, perhaps, as an American citizen, every person must protest against this kind of crap. If you want to know the truth about Islam, don't let nobody tell you... THE QURAN IS PUBLIC! you can read it by yourself and decide if what they say it's true or false...<br /><br />The video uses a lot of audiovisual strategies directed to manipulate and associate things that are not even related. The music used at some points prepare the public to hate what they see, even if they don't really understand what's going on in there. They use images that are misplaced from their original content.<br /><br />To end the comment I would like to make a reflexion... Don't you think you can do the same exact movie with every religion in the world? | 0neg
|
That's pretty ridiculous, I hope many people are exposed to Muslims who live all over the U.S, U.k, and all over the world. The religion has over a billion followers. I Myself born and bread in America and through my religious classes and teachings I have been taught to cherish my country and work to contribute to the society. I am very dedicated to the followings and teachings of my religion have been stressed through out life to educate and prepare oneself for success through education in order to contribute back to the world. I have know many Muslims from all over and I have traveled to countries like Pakistan..I have yet to meet one person who believes that we should hurt anyone or not accept any other religion except from the people in the media...I wonder why... Also its sad that these extremists are the ones the media use to represent a whole religion. Its a religion of one billion people, and these are less than one percent, I am sure the other people of other religions would not like to be represented by the KKK, IRA and many more which are simple small percentage extremists who use outdated and not literal passages from the respected books in order to pursue their own revenge, personal, or business matters through their so called religion | 0neg
|
This film was more effective in persuading me of a Zionist conspiracy than a Muslim one. And I'm Jewish.<br /><br />Anbody go to journalism school? Read an editorial? Freshman year rhetoric? These alarmist assertions, presented in a palatable way, might prove persuasive. But by offering no acknowledgment of possible opposing arguments, nor viable (or any at all) solutions, few sources and each of dubious origin, makes the argument an ineffectual diatribe.<br /><br />And thank goodness for that -- I wouldn't want anyone to leave the theatre BELIEVING any of this racist claptrap.<br /><br />A good lesson for me -- and hopefully a cautionary tale for you -- to actually read about a film before seeing it. | 0neg
|
Greg Davis and Bryan Daly take some crazed statements by a terrorists, add some commentary by a bunch of uber-right reactionaries, ascribe the most extreme positions of the most fundamentalist Moslems on the planet to everyone who calls themselves a Moslem, and presents this as the theology of Islam. Maybe their next film will involve interviewing Fred Phelps and the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church, adding commentary by some militant atheist "scholars, and call their film "What the World Needs to Know About Christianity." Ultimately, this film suffers from both poor production values and lack of attention to the most basic standards of journalism. Don't waste your time and money; just turn on your AM radio and listen to Rush Limbaugh for a couple of days for free and you'll get the same message with the same level of intellectual analysis. | 0neg
|
The first (and only) time I saw "Shades" was during a Sneakpreview. It hadn't even been in premiere. I remember there was someone of the directors staff there, don't even remember who. It was a Belgian movie, we never heard of it, so we were quite neutral, not knowing what to expect. Mickey Rourke is a brilliant actor and he's stands miles ahead all the rest. He plays an actor who's star has long stopped rising. He's helping to realise a movie in Belgium entitled "Shades".<br /><br />As soon as the movie started, we noticed how much swearing there is. Nothing against the occasional swear word. However this was way beyond annoying. Whenever Rourke uses the F*** word to express something, it comes naturally. However, when someone from the cast, a non-English speaker uses the F**** or S*** word, it becomes arrogant and aggressive.<br /><br />We quickly lost count of how many times they used the F and S words. Everybody was just glad to be out of the theatre. And we had to give a vote, but it was hard for us because it was only from 0 to 10, and we were looking for the -10. | 0neg
|
This is a very sad movie. Really. Nothing happens in this movie. The Script is bad!!! I guess they've just copy-paste the first 15 pages to 90 pages. The Producers must have thought let's create a Hollywood movie here in Belgium. They didn't succeed. Now in the third week it is only running in Antwerp and Brussels at 22h45 or something. In the past we have had really good movies in Belgium, like Daens. Shades is a waste of your time. Maybe you could sneak in the theater after you've seen a real movie. If you've seen 10 minutes of Shades, you've seen it all. It was advertised to death on local radio and TV. I hope it will disappear in the Shades soon. | 0neg
|
The first ten minutes of this movie about making an international movie in Belgium, are fine: you see real chaos on the set, a producer on the edge of a nervous breakdown, the cool has been-director (Mickey Rourke), the bad tempered star, etc. You have seen everything before, but it's well done. BUT THEN! The rest of the time the film just repeats itself: the same ten minutes over and over again. No climax, no dramatic development, no good acting, not even bad acting, it just goes on and on and on. Mickey Rourke has two good minutes when his character talks about his f**ked up career in a scene where reality and fiction meet. Altogether, that makes 12 good minutes.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
This movie was advertised on radio, television, magazines, etc. Almost every hour or every issue. So when we went to the Kinnepolis multiplex our expectations were very high. But oh boy, how sad this movie is! It is a movie in Hollywood style about a movie in a movie. Shades shows so clear we aren't ready to produce 'big Hollywood movies'. I am not a movie critic, but I think a good movie starts with a good script. And the script is a nightmare. Like my subject line says, it is nothing, and then looped. You could just stare to the television as well, without really seeing anything. That was the feeling we've got when we saw Shades. Shades is a BAD PRODUCTION!!! | 0neg
|
"Fly Me To The Moon" has to be the worst animated film I've seen in a LONG TIME. That's saying something since I have taken my son to see every animated release for the last 4 years now. The story is to be generous...trite. The voice acting is atrocious, Too cute sounding. The humor is of the Romper Room variety. The animation is passable for a Nickolodeon type of cartoon but this is being released on the big screen not cable television.<br /><br />It gets a 2 only because of it's OK 3-D visuals. Some of the scenes had a mildly stimulating image but We've seen much better in the past. I also question the insistence of the filmmakers to have characters fly away from the screen rather than into it in most of the scenes. While that is interesting at first it became tiresome after the 3rd or 4th time. It seemed to smack of indifference to me on the part of the creators.<br /><br />I will say this though, It had a pretty cool soundtrack. And for the record my son wasn't too crazy about it either. Bad movie. | 0neg
|
It is pretty surreal what these flies can do... eh well... this is a cartoon, so anything can happen in it.<br /><br />At first I must tell you that I love animated movies. Unfortunately this year's repertoire is very weak. This cartoon is nothing but a list of flaws:<br /><br />1) I quoted the tag line. It suggests that this movie has great 3D effects. Well, I did not see any, at least not something special I never saw before.<br /><br />2) The "flies" in this movie look nothing like real flies. At least they could've make them black. But cyan flies, seriously? With giant heads and slim torsos?<br /><br />3) The story. I guess it was written for 6 year old kids. I could tell it in two sentences it is so over simplified.<br /><br />4) Excessive patriotism. For example: "They are American files after all!" Oh, give me a break. | 0neg
|
Okay, so, someone, somewhere, a few years ago, thought it would be a good idea to make a 3D IMAX movie about some flies stowing away aboard the Apollo 11 and going to the moon. So they did. Someone, somewhere, was an idiot.<br /><br />I want to give the artists props for doing their homework on the hardware. As far as I can tell, the rockets and the launch hardware were bang on. The graphics in general were pretty good - the rocket launch gave me chills, like a good rocket launch always does (my Popular Mechanics flying-car gearhead blood still runs strong) and the 3D was pretty effective. The CG wasn't Pixar-quality, but it was generally good. The flies were kinda mediocre anthropomorphics, with some half-assed late-60s characters thrown in for colour (hippie flies, African-American flies with giant afros and black shades, etc.) and the maggots looked more like grubs with human baby heads (although they made suitably gross squelching noises).<br /><br />The scriptwriters certainly did not do their homework, relying on offensive and outdated clichés (60s gender politics including mostly-useless female characters, racial stereotypes, evil Russians, a fat fly who only wants to eat, grade-two level gross-out humour). In a movie aimed for IMAX, they blew a wonderful opportunity to sneak in some educational content about physics and space travel - they didn't get their physics right (zero-g in the Lunar Module during landing burn? PLEASE.) They couldn't even be bothered to read the original radio transcripts between Houston and the astronauts, all of which is in the public domain; instead they wrote their own dialogue, which sounds like crap.<br /><br />But we liked the maggots.<br /><br />So they get a point and a half for rockets and maggots. Uh, yay. 1.5/5. | 0neg
|
While the 3-D animation (the highlight of the show) did it's job well, most other elements fell flat. It was as though the filmmakers thought "well, it's gonna be 3-D so we don't have to work that hard on the plot or character development." And the fact that it's a children's movie is absolutely no excuse. The public is drawn to three dimensional characters (Shrek, Nemo's Dad) just as much as they are drawn to three dimensional graphics. The only dimension any of the main characters showed was two dimensional Scooter who twists the plot from time to time with his compulsion to eat everything in sight.<br /><br />And the absolute kicker? Buzz Aldrin's appearance at the very end (after watching a very robotic cartoon version of the same historical figure for an hour and half) comes on the screen and ruins everyone's good time by calling the film's main characters "contaminants" and announcing that the situation put forth on screen was actually an impossibility.<br /><br />???!!!??? Did you just wanna tell the kids the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus don't exist while you're at it? | 0neg
|
When I saw this trailer on TV I was surprised. In May of 2008 I was at Six Flags in New Jersey and this was showing at a 4-D attraction (you know, the attraction that the seats move). I take it that the version I saw was a shortened version (15 min.) and also re-created to add the motion effects. It was a cute movie... but that was it. It was educational and told about the first mission but the ending of a CGI spacewalk seemed a bit...well...trite. I was not a big fan of the movie but i would recommend this movie for any parent wanting to inform their children in a fun way about the first moonwalk. I will say, the character actors were well selected and the characters themselves were cute. So all-in-all, I would say, if you want to bring the younger kids... go for it. But if you are wanting to take your older kids, take them to another movie... they will thank you. | 0neg
|
1st the good news. The 3-D is spectacularly well done, and they don't go for the gotcha gimmicks. The film is based on the true story of the high point in human history, and even features one of the actual participants in that story: Buzz Aldrin.<br /><br />And now the meat of the matter: It's about FLIES, for krissakes! Flies with big, googy human eyes, true, but flies nonetheless. Remember when I likened the "Underworld" movies to rats vs. cockroaches? That wasn't intended as praise, and I never dreamed anyone would take it literally. This one's got even less empathy going for it. Baby maggots? Ugh. In one of those odd confluences of Hollywood groupthink, this flik was evidently on the drawing boards at the same time as "Space Chimps", also about critters in space.<br /><br />Go rent "Apollo 13" and see a 9-rated movie about the REAL space program (RIP). | 0neg
|
This is not a good movie. Too preachy in parts and the story line was sub par. The 3D was OK, but not superb. I almost fell asleep in this movie.<br /><br />The story is about 3 young flies that want to have adventure and follow up on it. The characters are lacking, I truly do not care about these characters and feel that there was nothing to keep an adult interested. Pixar this is not.<br /><br />I would have liked to see more special 3D effects. Also I wold like to see more fly jokes than the mom constantly saying "Lord of the flies" Pretty sexist in showing the women as house wives and fainting. | 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits