text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
The story line has been rehashed a number of times; "a breath of life in the retirement home". Several plays, movies, novels, short stories, poems and news articles have beat the subject to no end, but it's still an excellent platform for character studies.<br /><br />If 'Gideon' was crafted more enthusiastically it could be brilliant, but the dialogue is painfully boring and the story is absolutely flooded with cliches (even the subtitle and summary of Gideon's "simple wisdom" almost made me laugh in its ineffectiveness). Mostly indifferent acting is the final straw for this weak film, but the rest of it is bland enough to make the actors' lack of focus almost irrelevant. | 0neg
|
Christopher Lambert is annoying and disappointing in his portrayal as GIDEON. This movie could have been a classic had Lambert performed as well as Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump, or Dustin Hoffman as Raymond Babbitt in RAIN MAN, or Sean Penn as Sam Dawson in I AM SAM.<br /><br />Too bad because the story line is meaningful to us in life, the supporting performances by Charlton Heston, Carroll O'Connor, Shirley Jones, Mike Connors and Shelley Winters were excelent. 3 of 10. | 0neg
|
Really started the 80s trend of disgusting violence masquerading as a "horror film". I was the target audience for this repellent piece of trash and I was disgusted then as now.<br /><br />Oh, where do we start. Let's see, the setup: You can bring people back to live IF they died a violent death. So that laughably weak premise is the excuse to butcher people in horrible ways, because, well, that's needed to bring them back to life! This might have worked if played over the top for black laughs a la Re-Animator or something. But no, it's played straight. There is a whole terrified family in a wagon that gets hunted down, one of the few scenes at least where their demise is off screen. However, just about everything else is on screen. There is actually a scene where a young girl walking along is beaten and killed by zombie townspeople, who are all filming it and grinning with several cameras. Then, there is a closeup of her face as the filmmakers lovingly--and time consumingly--reveal in time-lapse photography her beaten face being carved down to a skull and rebuilt to look "normal" again. This done, of course, by a slumming Jack Albertson as the mortician behind it all. He likes to drive around in a ambulance/hearse playing old Tommy Dorcey tunes, I guess that is supposed to be cute.<br /><br />In the end, of course, even the Sheriff is undead and the doctor offers kindly to fix his rotting hands. Not clear why the Sheriff is not out with the other townspeople killing children with glee and slicing their faces off, sticking needles in burn-victims eyes, etc.<br /><br />I wonder, really wonder, what people see in a geek show like this to give it any kind of rating at all. It's not scary, the twists are laughable, and overall it's kind of sick. It's not even well enough done to "see it on a dare" or enjoy on a level you might watch a bad HG Lewis film. It's just God-awful trash, made for people who get off on this type of pointless gore, and made by people slumming for a paycheck.<br /><br />Sad that Albertson was even involved. | 0neg
|
This was just plain terrible. I read this book for school, i made As on all of the tests, and to see it like this! My teacher forced me and 20 other people to watch it, and it was worse than Leonard Part 6, Plan 9 from Outer Space, and Hudson Hawk put together. The thing that made this film so terrible was enough reasons to want to kill yourself over. First of all, it was made on Hallmark. Second, the acting was terrible. Third, it was like completely different from the book. Literally, it was so bad I asked myself to be excused. Basically, I would rather watch Basic Instinct 2 than watch this. Take my advice, don't watch this film. No one would want to watch this. It was horrible. HORRIBLE! | 0neg
|
This movie is a perfect example of an excellent book getting ruined by a movie. Jacob Have I Loved is quite possibly the worst film that I have ever seen. There is no storyline, plots disappear, and the editing is awful. To top it all off, the music is straight from a synthesizer and sounds unbelievably terrible. Bridget Fonda's acting is decent, but everyone else's acting is totally amateur. I would suggest this movie to someone who is studying to be a producer as a study on how not to produce a movie as it is chock full of bad cut-scenes, bad transitions and acting that should have been re-shot! Read the book and don't waste your time with this film. | 0neg
|
But I got over it. To me, it seemed that even the Author of the book favored Caroline. I felt so sorry for the character Louise, and she was constantly compared with Esau who was evil, I just felt the comparison was a bit harsh and un-realistic. Really though, the movie was bad. I wouldn't really see it unless you're ready for a big let down. | 0neg
|
I had to watch this in school. And to sum it up...<br /><br />Talentless actors, talentless script, and a talentless director.<br /><br />This movie is such a waste of your time. Don't even watch the movie. Don't bother. You will be so disappointed. My teacher said it was supposed to be good. How wrong she was. She even slept through it a little. The movie's actors were just bad. The best actor in there was the old man and that's not saying much. It's has horrible plot with awful characters. So unrealistic and I can honestly said it had no point. The script was unemotional and confusing. There was points in the movie when I furrowed my brows and said, "What?". Also there were just too many loose ties and plot holes. It was just absolutely horrendous. | 0neg
|
It's kind of fascinating to me that so many reviewers consider this a masterpiece. I am not a dullard as far as quality films go, and I will agree that from a technical filming standpoint, as well as for several of the characters portrayed, the film is in an award-worthy class. But there is no sense (for me) of this film actually going anywhere; I mean, taking the viewer anywhere. It is a series of mood scenes, perhaps remarkable as such, but I want more from a film. I look for story and movement and a fulfillment of arrival, none of which did I find in this film. Yes, it might be considered poetry on film . . . but there is much poetry that I cannot live with for the same reason: that it paints pictures without going anywhere.<br /><br />One thing further to be said is that it documents a mid-century English childhood, which is necessarily limited in its universality. I was personally appalled at what a young British boy had to live through, in that time and place. Having grown up in America just a decade earlier, I can authoritatively say that the contrast is immense. I cannot help wondering if this contrast has had some effect on those reviewing the film so favorably. In other words, could there be a tendency to judge the film entirely on its 'filmic magic' (which I acknowledge is there) and completely ignore its lack of relevance to the nature of one's actual recalled experience? | 0neg
|
i love horror films, low budget, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's.. but how can anyone think this is a very good horror film? let's compare it to titles in a similar vein- haunted house films. the haunting, the changeling, the shining. or for a similar technology based horror film that was FAAAR better, (though still FAR from great) Demon Seed. OK, i'll be fair.. let's compare it to made-for-TV horror films! don't go to sleep.. waaay creepier and better done. salem's lot, the night stalker, night gallery, even don't go in the basement or crowhaven farm were far better. *SPOILERS* first of all, for as good a scene as the bloody shower scene was, you have a scene like the opening scene.. oh boy! the garden hose comes alive to hose down some frisky teenagers! TERRIBLE. also, just what we understand about the house.. it apparently needs to use its video cameras to see what is going on, and it's a very emotional house. not a spirit, or demon, or entity, it's a house thats "possessed", but by what? we are led to believe an inanimate object learned to love suzie/margaret, our protagonist? now that I'm on the topic of suzie.. another scene that totally bothered me, this poor old crazy lady comes, tells you she was your nurse, pours her heart out, falls in the boiling pool, struggling in agony for 45 seconds, and what does margaret do? does she risk her hands being burnt to save this poor elderly woman that came there to warn her's life? no, she stands there and watches! the acting for the most part was better than average for a horror film, but that's where the positives end. for at least a more interesting, and fun horror film about an inanimate object that kills people watch death bed: the bed that eats. i have a feeling the people who rated this so highly either haven't watched it since it originally aired, or remembered it scaring them as children. this film was pretty much merit less. | 0neg
|
Exactly what you would expect from a B-Movie. Deritive, gratuitous nudity, boring in parts, ridiculous gore and cheesy special-effects. Of course it could have been better, better acted (defintly) better written, directed, etc. But then I guess it wouldn't have been a B movie. The actors pretty much sucked, in fact this pretty much seemed like an episode of buffy the vampire slayer or something except with a lot of blood, profanity and nudity.<br /><br />Tiffany Shepis must be singled out. She absolutely is the scream queen of the new millennium. Not that acting really matters in these movies, but she was better than any of the other actors. She's also smokin hot, in that plastic jump suit thing she wore for the whole movie - wow! Her posterior is absolutely stunning in that outfit, I mean it every single time she turns around you can help but check her out. And near then end of the film the viewer is rewarded with seeing her completely nekked.<br /><br />So if your a looser b-movie horror buff (like myself), check this out. If not, you should probably avoid at all costs. | 0neg
|
The script was VERY weak w/o enough character arcs to make you care one bit about the characters or what happens to them. The script is way too talky and not enough gore or action to even call it slow paced. The story gets to the point that you just want everyone to shut up and die as quickly as possible so you don't have to listen to them talk this very muted, stiff dialogue. On a technical note, the music mix is way to high and makes it hard to understand what is being said most times. Then again, this could be called a blessing. Overall, this same story could have better been told in a short film w/ a running time under 30 minutes. The obvious "in your face" homages to Sam Raimi and "Evil Dead" would have been good had they been more subtle, but here they seem more like a bald faced rip off. C'mon, this kind of 35mm budget and THIS is the best that could be done? Still, the cinematography, lighting design and shots were very well done indeed. | 0neg
|
The Hazing is confused mumbo-jumbo that wants so hard to be The Evil Dead that it even references Bruce Campbell several times. The problem is, it is simply not in the same league as that terrific movie. This movie is nowhere near as original. The plot has been used before, by Kevin Tenney in Night of the Demons, and that was a lot more fun. This flick wastes too much time with complicated exposition before getting the kids into the spooky mansion and starting the demonic happenings.<br /><br />Brad Dourif is, as usual, not given much to do here, but when he is on screen he puts in another over-the-top performance that would make Christopher Walken jealous. As for the acting of the kids, it's passable but by no means good. The shaky camera work is more annoying than clever or atmospheric. There are a few good moments when the first guy gets possessed and throws around some deadly one liners while dispatching his victims, but it was never scary for a second. The gore level is mid-range to low, but the director tries to make up for it by showing the actresses topless a few times. All in all, just okay if you have 87 minutes to waste. | 0neg
|
i cannot believe i wasted 80 minutes of my life watching this terrible film i kept hoping it was going to get better by the end but boy was I wrong. The plot was abysmal , the acting was extremely poor and the special effects were awful. Not even the 2 beautiful girls could revive my interest in this boring and bloody mess. However i cannot lie ,some of the lines in this film were quite memorable such as when the Asian boy says '' i lost my virginity to the babysitter so f**** stereotypes ''<br /><br />please do not waste your time with this crash unless u are prepared or want to have a good laugh .. maybe that way u can watch it to rip this movie with some mates | 0neg
|
I saw this movie primarily to see Brooke Burke (as Jill), who I had meet briefly in LA at a modeling trade show, in her first feature film. I was hoping to see more of her, but thought she did very well acting her role. Since she is such a beautiful and poised TV host, and model, it was not surprising. I was left wondering why she was killed, and what happened as a result. Maybe I just missed it.<br /><br />I wasn't really sure about the genre of this movie, and although I liked the actors I felt like it was for a college audience. I tried to keep an open mind considering horror wasn't my favorite genre, but felt like I had outgrown the gags. It seemed to drag out in some places, leave you guessing in some places about what powers the evil professor had, and, like a lot of other films had an unsatisfying ending.<br /><br />Having written a couple of scripts, I know a lot of this is difficult and may come down to personal opinions, how many movies you have seen & studied, and those you relate with at a point in time.<br /><br />In a nutshell, I found it interesting, but not a satisfying plot and ending for me. If Jill (Brooke Burke) would have returned through the portal in the end and kicked everyone's ass that would be a satisfying ending and would earn a higher rating. | 0neg
|
This was truly dreadful! It had a terrible storyline, was poorly acted, and was like an amateur remake of evil dead but not nearly as good.<br /><br />It took all my tenacity to make it through this one, it's a good job I didn't have to visit the toilet else I doubt I would have come back! This one makes Hammer House of Horror look like a big screen Hollywood epic. <br /><br />The only value to this movie was the never ending supply of beautiful women. Not a bad one among them! <br /><br />If you want to letch with your friends after a night on the beer then this one's for you ... else avoid it like the plague! | 0neg
|
The master of cheap erotic horror, Rolfe Kanefsky, finally makes a movie that doesn't go straight to the Playboy Channel. "The Hazing" borrows heavily from everything that came before it from Nightmare on Elm Street to Evil Dead, but still manages to do it with enough humor to make it watchable... just barely. The characters are cardboard, the dialogue is wooden, the story is paper-thin and the actors couldn't act their way out of a grocery bag. Put that all together and you have a pulpy ball of mulch for a movie. Sometimes, when I'm bored, I like to eat paper. Watching this movie is a lot like that. Chew on it for 90 minutes and you're left with a weird taste in your mouth and no nutritional value. | 0neg
|
Not exactly a new story line, but this romantic comedy makes the concept work. A young man(John Cusack) and a drop dead gorgeous woman(Kate Beckinsale)keep meeting by chance and wonder if they are meant for each other. Although both are promised to others...oddly enough they still feel that their soul mate is out there somewhere. A little sappy in some places, but viva la love. Being a romantic I am almost obligated to be riveted. My favorite scene is where Cusack is on the ground and snow starts falling. The finale is almost too sweet, but most deserving. This is not one of Cusack's deeper roles, but who in the hell could not be smitten by Beckinsale. Notable support is provided by Jeremy Piven and Molly Shannon. John Corbett plays the worst role I've ever seen him in. On the other hand Eugene Levy is quirky and funny. Watch this with your soul mate. | 0neg
|
Oh, for crying out loud, this has got to be the LAMEST movie I've seen all year, and I'm sorry the normally awesome John Cusack was even involved in this brainless, twitty piece of Stupidity. Where Sleepless in Seattle delivered what amounts to be the same message, albeit on a more subtle, somewhat more mature level, Serendipity delivers it with a sledgehammer, and then proceeds to pound it into your psyche for the next tedious hour and a half or so (and that's an hour and a half of my life I'll never get back again, thank you very much!!). It's bad enough the main characters of this movie have the emotional maturity level of fourteen-year-olds (actually I've known better fourteen-year-olds...), except maybe for Jeremy Piven, who was enjoyable enough. Just the first 15 minutes or so of the movie where Kate Beckinsale's character plays that annoying silliness of a game about throwing all sensibility to the wind (literally) had my best friend and I irritated beyond belief. I told my husband Rockstar had more intelligence, and at least, the characters in Rockstar weren't half as dysfunctional as the idiots were in this "Serendipitous" mess. It's annoying to watch protagonists who seem to have no clue about choice in their lives, and feel they're nothing more than puppets to destiny and the whims of fate. How utterly tiresome. I'm sure this movie will be more likely enjoyed by those who'd rather not engage in the chaotic messiness of making more complex life choices and then responsibly living with the consequences. After all, here's a movie where our hero and heroine live happily ever after only after wreaking havoc and misery on two other people's lives (namely their respective fiancées), not to mention other relatives and friends, just to get there.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
Wow, I can't believe people consider this a 'good' movie. Now, I have seen much worse, but there are much more romantic/funny comedies with John Cusack.<br /><br />This is a mediocre film at best. While the acting wasn't terrible, but not great, for a romantic comedy, there was little passion, little romance. There were many loose ends that don't show up or are not addressed. Unfortunately, the main characters do come off as complete cowards. They don't know themselves well enough to realize that they don't love the people they are engaged to. How do we know they aren't in love? By the utter lack of remorse both characters have for leaving their finances. I can think of few things more romantic than the continual escape from commitment that these two show.<br /><br />The movie doesn't even end with a wedding scene, more than likely both will get cold feet and drop each other like hot potatoes once a commitment is nearing. This movie is really about two people who can't commit to anything, unlike Cusack's previous characters, who were more than willing to make a deep commitment (Loyd in Say Anything, Martin in Grosse Pointe Blank, etc.).<br /><br />The greatest failure of this movie was the complete lack of any twists turns, or anything of interest. When the movie ended, I felt like they had failed to include a climax to the story, which basically fits the whole movie: boring. No suspense about whether the two will end up together, no joy when they do, no consequences to their actions.<br /><br />It is sad that people are so blind to the shoddiness of this movie, that they simply rebuke any criticism with 'Everyone is too Cynical!'. Criticism of this movie is not cynicism, simply unbiased examination. There are many other better romantic comedies, even ones with Grace Kelly, or Eva Marie Saint.<br /><br />If you think this movie is great, try these movies, you hearts will explode: The Princess Bride, Say Anything, Grosse Pointe Blank, High Fidelity, Keeping the Faith, Charade, Rear Window, North by Northwest, or There's Something About Mary (which is a good examination of idealized romance vs. today's society). | 0neg
|
For years I remember reading about this show "Trouble With Tracy" in the TV Guide. CFTO-TV Toronto every Saturday morning at 6 am! I lived about a two-hour drive north of Toronto and we couldn't get CFTO, but you know how it is - we always want what we can't have.<br /><br />Well, I knew what I wanted and what I wanted was to see what this "Trouble With Tracy" was all about. Did it have a beautiful girl in the starring role? Was there nudity? Was there suspense? Was it a comedy? It would've been fine if there was some promotion of the show. At least I could've known what I was missing. But, NO! The mystery drove me bonkers, until CTV affiliate CKCO built a re-transmitter in Wiarton, Ontario and began to broadcast "Trouble With Tracy" at the same time as CFTO....Saturday mornings at 6 am!! One Saturday morning I got up and turned the TV on at 5:59 and at last I got to see what "The Trouble With Tracy" was. Yes, the "Trouble With Tracy" was that it was Canadian content and stuck in the harmless 6 am spot so no one would ever see how awful it was.<br /><br />Talented Canadian Actor Steve Weston died a few years afterward, but many would argue he effectively "died" the first time he appeared on this show. When I saw it for the first time that cold Saturday morning and fell despondent back into my bed, part of me died, too. | 0neg
|
CRIME BOSS is directed by Alberto De Martino; an Italian crime drama partially filmed in Hamburg, Germany. An easily forgotten movie. Even in spite of a good car chase sequence, this flick seems to lumber on almost aimlessly. A new Don takes over a powerful Mafia family and finds himself fighting for his own life. Unwritten laws and ethics of the Mafia code make it hard to trust in anyone especially when millions of dollars are at stake. Brutality and violence breed the same in return. This can not be put on a shelf with the real gangster epics. Just the look of the film brings back memories of American drive-in fare. Even the popular American actor Telly Savalas can't boost the calibre of this crime drama. Antonio Sabato also stars with:Paola Tedesco, Guido Lollobrigida, Serio Tramonti and Piero Morgia. | 0neg
|
Kojak meets the mafia. Telly Savales is one of those guys from the past that seems pretty forgettable. I never thought that his show was all that great. This is his one dimensional characterization of a crime boss, with very predictable results. If you take the car chases and the general rambling out, there isn't much plot development or action. I find mafia movies to be dull because I have no respect or interest in common criminals and their actions. Hollywood, and in this case, the Italian cinema, treat these guys as heroes. I saw the film and in a few days I won't remember much about it. Lots of shooting, innocent bystanders dying, betrayal, and that sick loyalty. The film is photographed pretty well and the acting is decent. But the dubbing is so bad (due to voices that just couldn't come out of those bodies), that I almost started looking for Godzilla approaching the bay. | 0neg
|
This is a review of 'Freddy Mercury The Untold Story,' theatrical release, Chicago Int. Film Festival, 2007 One of the phoniest, uninspired and most tedious biographical documentaries I have seen. If the film I saw in a movie theater was originally released on TV, I would plead with its producers and distributors to not fool a paying audience with the false promise of a cinematically worthy documentary feature. Even as a made-for-TV documentary, the sentimental piano solos accompanying interviewees sitting in front of flower arrangements in hotel rooms and the pompous, pseudo-literary narration rang more true of a sleepapedic bed Infomercial. The only redeeming aspects of this "The Untold Story of Freddy Mercury" -- or, uhm, was it "The Untold Story of Princess Diana" are the original concert, video and TV footage -- unabridged Freddy Mercury and Queen. Testimonial interviews with irrelevant eye witnesses with insights, such as: "He was a free spirit," (really.. I thought Freddy Mercury was a company man...) belittle those Freddy testimonials, by Brian May or Montserrat Caballe that shed new and affectionate light into Mercury's complex life and character. And... what up with the Harry Potter-like boarding school segments? How did the interview with the first girl-crush ("...who now works in a travel agency") and members of Freddy's first school band contribute to what I really want to know about Mercury? Vital milestones of his personal life, his sexuality, his artistic style and growth, Queen, the band remain unexplored. These filmmakers don't ask a single, provocative question, nor do they engage in independent or visionary research of their subject, instead delivering a tedious montage of politely clean and vastly empty comments about an enigmatic and brilliant rock legend, who doesn't deserve to be remembered by this History Channel biography your grandparents can doze off to on a Sunday night. | 0neg
|
Yeah, I "get" Pasolini and his milieu, but at the same time, I feel his "Decameron" is largely overrated, and more than a little disturbing. Overrated because the supposed "realism" he introduces (milling crowds, crumbling architecture, etc.) are mooted by the absurd and downright goofy way that the characters behave. In the pursuit of realism, Pasolini utilized many non-actors, but their deer-in-the-headlights stares and painfully awkward line delivery gives the whole a terribly off-kilter and inconsistent feel. And frankly -- many of the toothless, misshapenly-featured people are painful to look at.<br /><br />And Pasolini's "Decameron" is disturbing (to me at least) because of the casual and prevalent homosexual content. Not because I'm prudish or homophobic (I'm neither) but because the emphasis that Pasolini places upon homoerotic images and situations is contrary to the neo-realism he otherwise espouses, so it comes off as gratuitous and forced. One can almost hear him say "Ooh--I've got to stick a cute, naked boy in this scene!" At times it seems that Pasolini is trying to play up the homosexual angle to thumb his nose at critics, and at other times because he enjoys that aspect himself, regardless of what his audience might prefer.<br /><br />The disjointedness of the 9 or 10 different stories in Pasolini's "Decameron" struck me as being a failing of Pasolini as a storyteller, rather than being an aspect of neo-realism. He seems to get bored with each story and so he wraps them up rather unconvincingly and with little conviction. Even the Pasolini's final line of dialog in the film, which some people seem to find pithy ("Why create a work of art when dreaming about it is so much sweeter?") -- to me, it just makes me wonder why Pasolini would bother making a film if he felt this way? In my opinion, a far better-crafted film (and with MORE homosexual content) is Fellini's "Satyricon". It is also full of bizarre-looking people and absurd situations, but it succeeds because of its pacing, direction and strong storytelling whereas "Decameron" fails by those same elements. | 0neg
|
Though the title may suggest examples of the 10 commandments, it is a definitely incorrect assumption. This is an adaptation of 9 SEEMINGLY unrelated stories from Giovanni Bocaccio's 14th century "Decameron" story collection.<br /><br />Set within a medieval Italian town's largely peasant population, it is a diatribe on the reality of sex (and its consequences) within that world and time. A realistic view of Life within this world, it sometimes feels like a journey back in time.<br /><br />Given the depicted human element of its time, one can also see the more adventurous side of morality in its protagonists - as well as the ironies of Life, at times. Or it may also be viewed as a general satire of the Catholic Church's rules.<br /><br />Nothing terribly special, but definitely interesting if one comes with no expectations or assumptions. | 0neg
|
The tragedy is that this piece of rubbish was part of my curriculum while I was studying cinema. So imagine how I was forced to watch it in complete. Believe me going through hell is much much easier. Our professor told us that this is some film ???, but he never thought that we'd disagree or assume the apposite. I don't think that there is any gods on earth, we're only humans, so all the filmmakers, therefore they CAN make mistakes, bad movies.. Or very bad too. The main problem wasn't that art, by all means, is susceptible to endless points of view, but that a lot of people just don't get it, that every single human got his own genuine taste, his own opinion, hence what I suppose it the greatest movie ever made, can also be your worst one ever, and how that is right both ways, but how many people can understand this correctly?. So my professor believes in this movie, and simply I don't. However, the only way to evaluate this "thing" is by measuring it by its original intent to show us different kinds of old folk stories or whatever to catch on this society's mentality, imagination, and nature. To tell you the damn truth Mr. Pier Paolo Pasolini as the scriptwriter and the director made it too unbearable to watch in the first place. The movie is so UGLY. I can't stand this, so how about analyzing it, then discovering the potential beauty in it !! It's beyond your mind hideousness, and strangely not for the sake of the movie's case or anything, it's for the sake of the unstable vision of (Pasolini). His work is so primitive to underdeveloped extent. The deadly cinematic technique, the effective sense of silliness, and the incredible horribleness made everything obnoxious. Look at the atrocious acting, the unfruitful cinematography, the awfully poor sets, .. OH MY GOD I've got the nausea already. It can terminate your objectivity violently as watching this movie is one true pain like taking the wisdom tooth off by a blind doctor. There are dreadful nightmares which could be more merciful than this. So originally, how to continue THAT just to review it fairly ? Actually, you don't. As this very movie doesn't treat you fair at all. There is really memorable scene in here where some boys are peeing into the eye of the camera (!) I'm trying to connect some things like that with Pasolini's end as murdered. | 0neg
|
Although I am generally a proponent of the well-made film, I do not limit myself to films which escape those boundaries, and more often than not I do enjoy and admire films that successfully "break the rules." And it is quite true that director Pasolini breaks the rules of established cinema. But it is also my opinion that he does not break them successfully or to any actual point.<br /><br />Pasolini's work is visually jarring, but this is less a matter of what is actually on the screen than how it is filmed, and the jumpiness of his films seem less a matter of artistic choice than the result of amateur cinematography. This is true of DECAMERON. Pasolini often preferred to use non-actors, and while many directors have done so with remarkable result, under Pasolini's direction his non-actors tend to remain non-actors. This is also true of DECAMERON. Pasolini quite often includes images designed to shock, offend, or otherwise disconcert the audience. Such elements can often be used with startling effect, but in Pasolini's hands such elements seldom seem to actually contribute anything to the film. This is also true of DECAMERON.<br /><br />I have been given to understand there are many people who like, even admire Pasolini's films. Even so, I have never actually met any of them, and I have never been able to read anything about Pasolini or his works that made the reason for such liking or admiration comprehensible to me. Judging him from his works alone, I am of the opinion that he was essentially an amateurish director who did not "break the rules" so much by choice as by lack of skill--and who was initially applauded by the intelligentsia of his day for " existential boldness," thereby simply confirming him in bad habits as a film maker. I find his work tedious, unimpressive, and pretentious. And this, too, is true of DECAMERON. It is also, sadly, true of virtually every Pasolini film it has been my misfortune to endure. | 0neg
|
Pier Paolo Pasolini, or Pee-pee-pee as I prefer to call him (due to his love of showing male genitals), is perhaps THE most overrated European Marxist director - and they are thick on the ground. How anyone can see "art" in this messy, cheap sex-romp concoction is beyond me. Some of the "stories" here could have come straight out of a soft-core porn film, and I am not even so much referring to the nudity but the simplistic and banal, often pointless stories. Anyone who enjoyed this relatively watchable but dumb oddity should really sink his teeth into the "Der Schulmaedchenreport" soft-porn German 70s movie series, because that's what "Decameron" looks like to me.<br /><br />Besides, the movie is sloppy on nearly all levels, from start to finish: <br /><br />1. Editing. An example: at 1 hour:15 minutes:45 seconds there is a chasing scene that is put quite clearly in the wrong place. It was supposed to be placed about a minute later, but I guess that Pasolini must have hired boozed-up editors who have little time for the "fine details" of movie-making. Pee-pee-pee's fans would probably counter this by saying that it was placed there intentionally - which I very much doubt. Besides, even if that were true, that would be even worse, because that story gains absolutely nothing by making it harder to follow. (This isn't exactly "Eraserhead" or one of Tarantino's broken-form films...) <br /><br />2. Acting. Vey sloppy. Triple Pee's fans (all 8 of them) proudly declare how 3P-O uses "real people instead of actors". (Aren't actors people? Or are they Martians? Sure, many actors have sub-par IQs but does that mean we should treat them with contempt...?) Other directors have used amateurs and succeeded (such as Alan Parker or De Niro), so why are PPP's amateurs so utterly awful in his movies? The answer is once again appalling sloppiness. Pasolini is sloppy in everything, and that includes trying to get as much out of his toothless amateurs as he can. He is a lazy director, an IMperfectionist if you like. The anti-Kubrick, I suppose... Pee-pee-pee's principal goal when casting must have been to find as many toothless old people as possible (and young men that are to his liking). In Pasolini's world there is a simple formula: lack of teeth + strange face = realism. It's all well and fine to have them toothless, but at least try to eke out some at least semi-decent performances out of these inexperienced neo-thespians, otherwise you're an amateur yourself - an amateur director, in Pasolini's case. Whether 3P-0 wasn't capable of this feat or simply didn't care doesn't change anything. (Who knows... maybe he didn't even notice the awful acting?) <br /><br />3. Audio. The synchronization. If 3P-0 felt that microphones are too much of a hassle when filming a movie, then he ought to have at least made a concerted effort in post-production, i.e. getting all these bum actors to say their lines on cue in the studio, so that we the viewers wouldn't have to watch mouths move while the elusive dialogue floats elsewhere in the movie.<br /><br />4. Lack of concept. We have close to a dozen stories which aren't connected in any meaningful way. Some are anti-Church (more on that later), while some are merely sex yarns i.e. cheap male (sometimes gay) fantasies designed to titillate and nothing else. The stories and characters are not amusing (if at all) on an intelligent level, but on the basest level. 10 year-old kids can laugh here... And there is nothing wrong with that, but then don't call it exalted, intellectual art! <br /><br />5. As a result of point 4, there is also a lack of logic in the order of the stories. That goes without saying. Pee-pee-pee could have arranged the order in any other way, and we would have had the exact same movie. This also means that you can feel free to start from the middle then go back to the beginning, etc. "Decameron" is like a bowl of spaghetti that way: when you start eating it you can begin with any thread you want, it makes no difference at all.<br /><br />6. The pointlessness of the stories' resolutions. Most stories end with a cheap gag/joke, i.e. some damn dumb punchline straight out of a porn comic-book, whereas some stories don't even have a conclusion: they merely end. Finito. At best, the stories are watchable semi-anecdotes, barely any deeper meaning there - unless you find "deep" meanings in a porno. There is, of course, nothing easier than looking for and finding "meaning" where there is an absence of it. Hence even any hardcore porn film can be philosophized/mused over endlessly. It's easy and fun. Try it, oh ye 8 PPP fans! <br /><br />As for the Church-bashing... Some viewers get all excited about his attack on Catholicism and what-not. In principal, that's all well and fine - after all, I'm an atheist myself - but what those people ignore is the simple but essential fact that Pasolini was a Marxist. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. A Marxist criticizing the Church for hypocrisy and stupidity? Where does he get the nerve? Besides, Pasolini wasn't an atheist, hence his high-and-mighty and self-righteous stance isn't justified. After all, Marxists are believers: they merely substituted the accepted god with the idea of a Utopia, which is merely another supernatural wishful-thinking fantasy. Hence I cannot get excited about PPP's anti-religion antics.<br /><br />This sophomoric humpdorama anthology ends with Pasolini saying rather pretentiously: "I wonder... Why produce a work of art when it's nice just to dream about it?" He wasn't actually referring to this silly little movie as art, was he...? In case he was - the poor deluded man - then I have to wonder why he didn't just leave it at dreaming, and NOT make all those bad movies...<br /><br />Wanna read my altered subtitles of Bergman movies? E-mail me. | 0neg
|
SPOILERS: I'm always surprised at how many people gave this game good reviews. It was awful. The script and voice acting alone ruined it. Gabriel and Grace are the most unlikeable characters in the game. You almost pray for their deaths. And worst of all, there are less vampires in this game than there were werewolves in The Beast Within.<br /><br />The lack of real vampires was incredibly disappointing. If you're expecting some kind of Anne Rice style vampire story, forget it. This game's story has very little to do with vampires. You won't even see any till about the very end and even then, you won't get to fight them.<br /><br />The story has radical, and pretty much blasphemous, views of Christianity. I'm amazed it got off the drawing board. I'm not even Christian and I found it offensive. Mostly, the story centers around a search for The Holy Grail and buried treasure. The kidnapping of a royal baby, which should have been the focus, really gets pushed aside. There is no sense of urgency for Gabriel to find the baby. In fact, he almost never asks anyone about the baby after the first few time blocks.<br /><br />The graphics are pretty bad. The characters move about at a snail's pace even on the best of systems. They are chunky and outdated. And it's hard to go from the FMV of The Beast Within to this horrible game engine for Blood of the Sacred.<br /><br />The relationship between Gabriel and Grace takes an awful turn, too. I really don't know why it was so horribly rushed, but they do sleep together. And it's not fun. Gabriel spends most of the game telling his best friend Mosely how he thinks of Grace as more of a sister and he doesn't think she's the one for him. And he seems really grossed out that they slept together. But he's so unlikeable throughout the game, that you almost don't even care at that point. His dialogue was the worst in the game. And he was constantly making stupid sexual innuendos at anything female the entire game. By the end of the game, Grace leaves him with what appears to be a Dear John letter. I guess she was as fed up with him as most of the players were.<br /><br />I found the story to be annoying and boring. I was expecting to play a story of a royal baby who was kidnapped by vampires. And I was expecting to get to see and fight vampires, maybe even have Gabriel or Grace turn into one. But no. Instead, the story focused on the author's warped vision of Christianity. What a shame. Here they had the elements for a great adventure, and instead we got this.<br /><br />For me, the only interesting parts of the game were actually at the very end. We do get a few action style puzzles at the end. But it wasn't worth suffering through the entire game to get to them.<br /><br />I can't really recommend this game. I had gotten it back when it came out, years ago, and I hated the game engine so much that I shelved it for years. I only recently dusted it off to see what I'd been missing. And now, I'm very sorry that I did. My favorite characters were ruined. I hope there will be a fourth game just to redeem the series. And I hope they get it right next time. It would be a terrible shame to end the series with this installment. | 0neg
|
"Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned" is the third installment of the Gabriel Knight games, a series of adventure games about the roguish writer/paranormal detective, Gabriel Knight. Gabriel and his companion, Grace, have been asked by Prince James of Albany to investigate a series of mysterious attacks by so-called "night visitors." When the son of Prince James is kidnapped, Gabriel pursues the night visitors to Rennes le Château, where he begins piecing together a mystery relating to the Holy Grail.<br /><br />Despite the marketing, this game is not about vampires. Vampires have a token appearance in the game, but never command center stage, as did the voodoo hounfor in "Sins of the Fathers" or the werewolves in "The Beast Within." Gabriel and Grace make no attempt to uncover the true nature of vampires, or to research lore on vampires. Although the vampires do murder three people during the course of the game, their victims are chosen at random and have nothing to do with the main plot.<br /><br />A large part of the charm of the first two Gabriel Knight installments was in the relationships which Gabriel formed with the villains. Through these relationships, the player could not help but sympathize with the villain, and thus the villain was transformed into more of a human and less of a monster. However, in "Blood of the Sacred," Gabriel's only interaction with the villain is through a single, cheesy interview, which does nothing to endear the villain to the player.<br /><br />The roles that Gabriel and Grace play in this mystery are fairly futile. Gabriel spends his time snooping into the identities of members of a treasure-hunter tour group staying at his hotel, but what he uncovers amounts to nothing more than a red herring. Grace spends her time researching the mystery of Rennes le Château, but all her research is rendered superfluous by the presence of a perplexing ally who has known the answer to this mystery for centuries.<br /><br />The actions of this perplexing ally and his polar opposite --- the vampire leader --- are insupportable. The ally leaves hints about the mystery of Rennes le Château in broad daylight and expects Grace (and not the other treasure hunters from the tour group) to find them. However, he could have revealed the mystery to Grace in its entirety on day 1, instead of putting the kidnapped child at risk for an additional 48 hours. And in the end, he simply tells Grace the mystery in its entirety anyway.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the vampire leader fails to achieve the goals of centuries of scheming, because he chooses to refrain from action for two days after the kidnapping of the child. The only reason given for his decision to delay action is that he wants to savor his victory.<br /><br />The game would have been much better had it been purely focused on the Holy Grail. The kidnapping and vampires should have been omitted, replaced with a race against the Vatican to uncover the mystery of Rennes le Château. Since Gabriel is portrayed more than once as reluctantly Catholic, this conflict would have had many opportunities for character development.<br /><br />All in all, the game was a disappointing installment in the series, despite an improved interface and the return of Tim Curry as the voice of Gabriel Knight. | 0neg
|
Uwe Boll has done the impossible: create a game adaptation that stays at least somewhat true to the game; he has turned a game full of antisocial and offensive content into a movie full of antisocial and offensive content. So, as an adaptation, it's a success.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it's still Uwe Boll we are dealing with here, so don't expect the movie to be actually any good. while it does have it's moment, "Postal" wears out his welcome very fast and becomes a pain to sit through.<br /><br />At its core, Postal is a satire on the United States, as done by a twelve year old kid. Boll seems to think that offensiveness is linearly proportional to comedic value: the more offensive, the funnier, and the more exaggerated the funnier. This results in a movie that sets new levels of tastelessness while being extremely hit and miss. Yes, some gags do work but it seems to be pure luck. High points include the director satirizing himself, and people getting hit very violently by trucks and other vehicles. Low points include..well pretty much everything else.<br /><br />After the initial surprise wears off, Postal simply becomes a bore to watch. Yes there is a good joke every and good point ten minutes, but everything else consists of hordes of annoying characters shooting and chasing each other all over the place for what seems to be an eternity.<br /><br />This probably would have worked as a short movie, but it's just not enough content for something that lasts over 90 minutes (although it feels twice as long). There are nice ideas and nice tries, but they get hopelessly lost in endless and pointless action scenes and content that is offensive just for the sake of it 4/10 | 0neg
|
I'm not going to waste my time writing an essay and waste your time. I would like to say, however, that all those who are uptight about this movie even being made are being totally ridiculous. Johnnymacbest, you can't play that card, and I mean the nationalism patriotic card, to make people not watch this movie. this is a movie that expresses its free will in this country (oh yea i played that card)even though the director is German and deserves a slap on the wrist every time he reaches for a camera, but the world is full of controversy, and its the same thing you've heard before, like the GTA controversy. It's a comedy, laugh and be disgusted, not disgusted all together, its dark humor and obviously you don't have the heart to take it, the past is past, yes people remember those who were lost but its time to move on, that was !!!7!!! years ago. You can still watch this movie and have good moral values. <br /><br />Besides I'm insane, and who needs a soul? | 0neg
|
Okay this is gona be short and sweet review...Something the movie should have taken a practice ina nd made its life shorter and sweeter than it was.<br /><br />This movie is $^@%. There's a good reason there was a petition with over 40,000 + signatures ALL demanding Uwe Boll stop making movies from franchises people liked. Blood Rayne being a biggie there.<br /><br />The jokes are good...if you've never heard them a THOUSAND times before. THe acting is descent but u can really only blame the script for that. I even a few moments wonder if they're even using a script.<br /><br />The movie has little to NOTHING to do with the original games. HELLO if you've played the games u know the main character has no real motivation outside homicidal urges like mass murder because he stubbed his toe or simular. There's way too much story for such a stupid movie. like I said. I WOULDN'T even steal this movie. ANd for the person who says this is ' Funniest movie of 2007'..........need to take a look around, the news is better than this. | 0neg
|
I saw this movie at the Edmonton International Film Festival, with the great Dr. Uwe Boll in attendance.<br /><br />The film is, simply put, very, very bad. And no, not in the usual Uwe Boll "so bad it's actually entertaining" way, but just plain bad. The plot concerns a man who leads a terrible life (because of a past criminal record, apparently), can't get a job, and with an awful 900 pound cheating wife. This man turns to his cult-leader uncle in a plan to steal a truck load of toys that contain the bird flu virus. Al Qaeda also has designs on stealing the toys, and what follows is just under two hours of completely incomprehensible sex and violence.<br /><br />The acting is awful (except for Dave Foley, who really tries, despite it all), the jokes never rise above children being shot in the chest in slow motion, and people taking a poo. It's supposed to be satire, but I'm not sure of what.<br /><br />Think "Airplane!", but done by the creators of South Park, and without any jokes. | 0neg
|
If I could i would give ZERO stars for this one, but unfortunately i have to give one...<br /><br />There is no single scene I could laugh about... but the game didn't make me laugh either. So if you're some ill retarded folk, go to your local cinema, watch this movie and give it 10 stars, like some people here already did.<br /><br />but for me... in a movie where children are shot dead to achieve humor... good taste goes over the edge... this was the third time i wasted my time to see a Boll movie and it was definitely my last!<br /><br />0/10... i'm ashamed of being from the same country as Uwe Boll!<br /><br />PLEASE PLEASE KEEP HIM FROM MAKING MORE MOVIES!!!!! | 0neg
|
I watched this movie at a Sneak Preview screening and I'm glad I didn't pay for it. This movie is just disgusting. Its full of dick and fart jokes and takes no pride in the action sequences(such as the shootout in "Little Germany"). I made a little list of things I enjoyed in the movie.. and a lot of which I didn't agree of.<br /><br />1. Dave Foley's penis. 2. The fart jokes. 3. The Poop jokes. 4. The Dude was a pussy. 5. No Gary Coleman. 6. The Talibans 7. Again making fun of Bush.. WE GET IT HE'S AN IDIOT.. move on. 8. The Dude has blonde hair. 9. The Plot. 10. The killing of minors 11. Uwe Boll was in it. 12. Most of the cast were just outrages and out there.<br /><br />Now the (few) good ones<br /><br />1. The Dude uses a cat as a silencer like in the game. 2. Lots of action. 3. Crotchy made a return (and a cameo of the maker of Postal) 4. Uhm.. I didn't have to pay for it. 5. There are a few "what the ef" moments<br /><br />Boll did it again. He made another crappy game into movie adaption. Kudos to you, Mr Boll. 2/10 | 0neg
|
Today, I wrote this review in anger at Uwe Boll and Hollywood.<br /><br />Hollywood has produced movies based on one of the darkest days of our nation. 911 changed everything. It changed our perception of security. It changed our understanding of the evil of man and humanity. Most importantly and devastatingly , it changed our world.<br /><br />However, I can't not stress how utterly repulsed, disillusioned, and angry I am at the careless, blatant ignorance of Hollywood seeking to make a lucrative profit out of death and destruction. This film and those like it are bound to cause controversy amid word-of-mouth among moviegoers and critics alike; most surely to be echoed by the mainstream press. Hollywood has sunk to a new low. Even lower than the low-down bastards who perpetrated the most barbaric acts of savagery and unrelenting cruelty. Behind it all is Uwe Boll. I am very angry at this movie. How dare they disrespect the memories of families of those lost? How dare they mock the lives of the brave men and women who risked their lives to save those trapped in the doomed towers on that fateful day of infamy?!?!? How dare they try to satirize and at the same time capitalize on a national tragedy in the mist of a mourning and weary post-911 world?!?!?! How...dare...they? <br /><br />To those who have the gall to even think of seeing this morally appalling travesty, I say this with a heavy heart with all my strength: Remember. Think back to that day and ask yourself whether or not you are a sane and moral person. Think back to that day, ask yourself whether or not this film is a disgrace and dishonor to the lives lost on that day. Think back to that day of the outcry of families of loved ones. Think back to that day of the lives lost on those two planes. Think back to the further carnage it caused following the attacks.<br /><br />Ask yourself if you have a soul.<br /><br />Think. Remember. Respect the memories of the lives lost on 911 by not seeing this film at all. | 0neg
|
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> With their no holds bar cruel offensive humor, sure enough to offended anyone, you would sure think this would be a laugh riot! ............wrong. Worest movie since Open water. Don't be to surprised if you completely miss this movie upon release date as I'm sure it wont do very good at all at the box office. This movie had a lot of Potential but fell to little to short. No enough character development, awkward actors and The upside of this movie was nudity. Boobs. Amazing. If I had to see this movie again, I myself would go POSTAl. <<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<< | 0neg
|
**SPOILERS**KHAMOSH is totally unrealistic, lacks a plot, and was basically only made to see stars portray themselves. The most suspenseful scene in the movie was when Shabana Azmi is in the shower and then we see her TV playing the shower scene from PSYCHO. This movie actually expected users to believe that Naseeruddin Shah's character has a good enough memory to remember where certain shots were fired and how many!<br /><br />***SPOILER BEGINS***<br /><br />At the end, the killer spills his guts to Shabana Azmi long enough to allow Naseeruddin Shah's character to run up and shoot him!<br /><br />***SPOILER ENDS***<br /><br />It is a little humorous (only a little) in the beginning to hear the director and cast members throwing insults at each other and hearing Shabana Azmi exclaim, "Oh sh-t!"<br /><br />Overall, a baaaaaaaaaaad movie!<br /><br />Rating: ** out of ********** (2 out of 10) | 0neg
|
Wow You guys are way too nice!!!Corny,Corny,Corny That is how I feel about that film.It started well with a good idea , A guy (Edward Asner) escape from Jail dressed as Santa,a bunch of kids find him and believes his the real Santa so the Fake Santa enlist the children to help him find a bag of stolen money.the film is like a Christmas version of "Whistle down the wind". The movie start well but gradually it becomes Cheesier and Cheesier to the point that at the end it becomes ridiculous and you just cant take this film seriously. For example you get the Scrooge type character called Sumner (Rene Auberjonois) who's a total Douchebag who treat his young son like a pile a rubbish ,he treat his son so bad that he don't even buy him decent clothes,the poor kid wears Jeans with Holes in it! but a 45 second scene with Fake Santa visiting Sumner and by the end of the film you get the guy all happy singing Christmas Carol and giving his neglected son a hug...yep that is how Corny it is... I'm all for feel good movie especially during Christmas and I am a big fan of seasonal TV movie but this one is way too over the top for me,it is a shame because it started well but the second half of the movie is trowing a supernatural element to the film that just don't match with the rest of it. It's not totally bad,there are some solid acting , especially from the children but there are plenty of better Christmas film around. | 0neg
|
I wonder who was responsible for this mess. The jokes wouldn't have worked for gilligan's island. If this had gone to series, would there have been jokes about Auschwitz, or would Eva have to replace her oven, only to have Adolf suggest the kind that seats 50?? Another post compared this show to I love Lucy. The problem with this is that Lucille Ball was a genius at physical comedy and bizarre situations, and this mess was just plain badly done and an insult to my intelligence. <br /><br />After the damage the Nazi's did to England and the number of people they killed, I would think the very concept of a comedy about Hitler would seem repugnant and most normal people would have killed this concept before any episodes were produced. | 0neg
|
This may be the worst show I've ever seen. Aside from the tastelessness of having a sitcom about Hitler, it just isn't funny or entertaining in any way. It is very similar to a 1950's sitcom in its cornball humor and contrived situations, but while it can be well done like in I Love Lucy, it's just not funny here. I think the show was based around the novelty "look, it's Hitler as a bumbling sitcom figure" but it just fell flat in every regard. The guy playing Hitler is so hammy that its hard to sit through that alone. I wonder what could have possibly made the network think this was a good idea to air. I thought America had some tasteless show, but the Brits had us beat this time. America would never air a sitcom about Hitler, although we did have that show about Lincoln's slave, The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer. Chances are you'll probably never see this show, since it only aired one episode and will probably never be released on DVD. | 0neg
|
Except for the Brady Variety Hour, this was some of the hokiest television I've seen in a while. The video production qualities weren't too bad, but the overall look and feel were unmistakeably early 80's. And Marie Osmond looks like she did battle with the Avon Lady.. and lost big time. WAY too much eyeliner.<br /><br />It was kind of embarrassing to watch veterans Danny Kaye and Eric Severeid take part in this. Even more interesting was watching Alex Haley talk about the African Pavillion in World Showcase that would be opening 'in about a year.'<br /><br />As of this writing it is 17 years later and it hasn't opened yet (Unless you count Disney's Animal Kingdom.) All in all though, for all the shortcomings, this still an interesting visual piece of Disney history. | 0neg
|
"A young woman unwittingly becomes part of a kidnapping plot involving the son of a movie producer she is babysitting. The kidnappers happen to be former business partners of the son's father and are looking to exact some revenge on him. Our babysitter must bide her time and wait to see what will become of the son and herself, while the kidnappers begin to argue amongst themselves, placing the kidnap victims in great peril," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />That acclaimed director René Clément could be responsible for this haphazard crime thriller is the real shocker. Despite beginning with the appearance of having been edited in a washing machine, the film develops a linear storyline. Once you've figured out what is going on, the engaging Maria Schneider (as Michelle) and endearing John Whittington (as Boots) can get you through the film. There are a couple of female nude scenes, which fit into the storyline well.<br /><br />**** Wanted: Babysitter (10/15/75) René Clément ~ Maria Schneider, John Whittington, Vic Morrow | 0neg
|
From everything I'd read about the movie, I was excited to support a film with a Christian theme. Everything about the movie was very unprofessionally done. Especially the writing! Without good writing a movie doesn't have a chance. The writer/director said in an interview that he didn't want to give away how the title relates to the story. Believe me, it was NO big surprise. I kept waiting for the teenage/young adult back-story to unfold, but it never did. As someone who has gone through a divorce, I was very disappointed. This movie would have been NO comfort to me when I first went through the emotional turmoil that divorce can bring to your life as a Christian! | 0neg
|
Dave is going through a divorce and his mind wanders back to his first love. "Wanders" is probably not the word. I should say he fixates on the past girlfriend. He recalls to the day when the relationship ended. The dream sequences only lack the hazy transitions. He fondly recalls their favorite songs and places they went. I'm not a counselor, but maybe this had something to do with the failed marriage???? Dave goes to a support group and meets up with a lady half his age (also divorced) who, instead of being "turned off" by his creepiness, starts to become interested in him. Did I mention how creepy Dave is? He sometimes refers to himself in the third person. He doesn't move his arms when he walks, either. It's just weird. Too make a long story short, Dave plots to hunt down Mary (the old gal friend) and kill her...err...I mean confront her. He does so. Which was really creepy. He believes her to be married, yet he STILL flies half-way across the country to meet her. He stakes out her house to make sure she is alone, before he "drops in" on her. He has an awkward conversation with her that ends with his sharing the gospel of Christ in about 10 words or less, and flies back to the new young girlfriend. We enjoyed the movie mostly for unintentional comedic value. I am still entertaining the wife with my Dave impressions...."I heard another Dave & Mary song!" | 0neg
|
I was interested in seeing this movie because I knew it was Christian based. The director had a good idea/intentions when making this movie but it could have been better. I can understand why someone would still have feelings for who they believe is the greatest love of their life. However, I didn't understand why the director made his friends so insensitive, mean and rude. The main character kept apologizing to his friends when they were the ones mean to him. They weren't understanding at all and they used God as a reason to explain their behaviors. The main character, nor anyone else didn't know if the ex-girlfriend was divorced, still married etc but they were against him resolving old feelings that needed to be dealt with. His friends were suppose to be Christians and should have been portrayed as being supportive whether they agreed with his decision or not. So many times we do things in life where we don't apologize to those we have hurt in the past and when he was trying to do this they were all against him. The ironic part was his new female friend accused him of having stalking behavior for simply looking up an old friend, when she did a really odd thing to get a hold of his name, address and phone number...she seemed to be the stalker!. she didn't seem like a friend at all but was only looking out for herself. God is love...and I think God wants people to be with the person they were meant to be with and i feel the movie did a terrible injustice by making it seem like God doesn't care about true love...only that you stay with someone you made a bad choice with. We all make mistakes...it's all about what steps you take to make amends. Like I said the movie had potential but I was tired of the one-sided point of view being constantly repeated and jammed down the viewers throat by his so-called...well-meaning friends. This movie didn't hold true to the Christian belief of love but i give it a C for its effort. | 0neg
|
I gave this more than a 1 because I did think there were some moral lessons in this story and it provoked some thought and comment from my wife and I. The acting and the dialogue were mediocre and I must confess I came out feeling like I had been beaten over the head with the God this , God that and Christ is our saviour stuff. The movie and the story line did not need it. If , as I am , you are a recovering Catholic or Christian avoid this one it will make you nauseous. The movie did a good job of demonstrating the thin line between being a good citizen and how someone could become a potential stalker focused on what might have been. | 0neg
|
I watched the whole movie, waiting and waiting for something to actually happen. Maybe it's my fault for expecting evil and horror instead of psychology? Is it a weird re-telling of the Oedipal myth: I want to kill my father and mother and marry my uncle and compose musical theater with him? I didn't understand why certain plot elements were even present: why was the construction upstairs, why was there that big stairwell with a perfect spot for someone to fall to their doom if no one was actually going to do so, why have the scenes at all with the father at work, why have such a nice kitchen if you're only going to eat takeout, why would the boy want to be baptized and the parents be the ones to resist instead of the other way around. I see lots of good reviews for this movie...has my taste been corrupted by going up with 70s b-movies and old sci fi flicks? | 0neg
|
The acting in the film is really well done honestly, but the movie is so slow and so boring, as soon as it gets interesting everything slows to a major halt. I am glad to see Sam Rockwell in this, he did a great job, so did the other actors as I mentioned but man... this is one of the worst dragged out films I have ever seen. Now maybe in a short film form this movie would be good, but other than that, avoid it. This film has so much filler it makes a Twinkie cake jealous. <br /><br />I never, ever, walk out on films, but watching this one at home with family, I walked out. Yeah, it was that boring. Apparently my comment doesn't have enough lines to post, so here's some more filler. I guess I was inspired by the movie I just watched. | 0neg
|
This movie "Joshua" is extremely disturbing, and downright pointless. It actually makes me shudder to think there are people who would enjoy watching it. Without giving away the story it is about a young boy's reaction to his newborn sister, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. During the entirety of this movie the viewer is subjected to some of the most unsettling child behavior imaginable. Adding insult to injury, by the end of this movie there is absolutely no real outcome except the fruition of pure evil at the hands of a child no less, who outsmarted a whole group of dumb adults. There is no redemption, no justice served, and a whole group of adults who are not smart enough to see what is going on around them. Frankly, I did not enjoy watching this movie. It was extremely unsettling. Even for those who might enjoy horror movies, this movie could be too much. Despite the fact this movie was well acted, the story itself is so disturbing that watching it was equivalent to a 90 minute wait in a dentist's waiting room in anticipation of some painful dental procedure. | 0neg
|
I did not enjoy the film, Joshua, at all. Perhaps it is because I saw another, much better similar film titled Orphan 2 days prior but perhaps it's really just because this film was not very good. I am going with the ladder. Sure, the plot of an evil child is not exactly original but that doesn't mean the film could not succeed. It could have been suspenseful and entertaining and chilling but instead it was slow building, boring, uneventful and really didn't leave me thinking anything more than 'that wasn't very good' when it was all over.<br /><br />At the end, Joshua's motivations are revealed. I won't give that away but the reality is that he didn't really accomplish his goals since despite Vera Farmiga as his mother, Abby, disappearing about 3/4th through the movie, all arrows point to her returning home soon. She was committed to a mental institution because she was losing her mind but then Joshua's Father/Her husband was accused of tampering with her medication which tells the audience that the institution realized that she was indeed not mentally ill but rather was being dosed medically. So.. shouldn't she be coming home soon? Won't Joshua have failed? Won't his Mother be living with him and his sister and possibly his Father soon? I question the Father since his future is left open ended.<br /><br />At the end of the day, I didn't care about the characters. The evil demon child Joshua wasn't really scary. The storyline moved slowly and when it picked up it was still boring. Suspense fell flat every single time. When it was over I couldn't believe I had sat through the whole thing. <br /><br />4/10 just because the acting was good from the parents especially Vera Farmiga as the Mother but if you want to see a movie about an evil 'child' go see Orphan. Now that's a movie that took an unoriginal concept and created a brilliant movie. | 0neg
|
Though not a fan of Sam Rockwell, I was surprised when I saw his name in the credits in the opening of 'Joshua.' Heck, I wasn't even aware he was in 'Joshua' until I started the movie. So it goes without saying, I was watching the movie on the basis of the movie, not the leads. A sort of 'Rosemary's Baby,' 'The Omen' or any other demonic kid movie 'Joshua' was billed. Unfortunately, it fell flat. Slow, incredibly slow, and flat. Yet, I continued on to see how this would all resolve, hoping beyond belief, the ending climax would shed some light on the subject. Okay, I admit, it did (a wee bit) but what a stale closing. And what a low-low budget movie, or at least that's how they designed it. A person falls you don't see the drop, you see someone lying down in what appears to be blood. A person gets hit by a cab you don't see it, you see someone complaining, holding a bike up. I'm not sure if this is called "style" or laziness or simply, lack of funds for special effects. We have a "rich" family with a crazy mom, a workaholic father attempting to balance everything, a kid Joshua, who may/may not be the antichrist and a new born baby girl who cries a lot. She cries as much as we see how many days she's alive and what was that about? Are there rats above or is it Joshua? Is his mother nuts? Is Joshua crazy? Is he merely jealous of the newcomer to the family? Is he going to grow up to be Michael Myers? Or does he drive his family to the brink? I don't think so. They were nuts prior, and no "so-called" acting could make me believe otherwise. Unfortunately, barely any questions were answered, barely any open doors shut. I'm sure that might have been the idea, but for Pete's sake, give me something. Anything. There are plenty better kid-gone-wild movies to explore. Joshua's more like the Mini-Me of the antichrist. | 0neg
|
The Lady in Cement is a veritable course on social anthropology of the late 60's. The writing, not the acting, is at center stage. Did I say - pure camp! Prepare to be offended if you are female or gay. Broad and dame are standard terms and gay baiting and bashing are represented for what they were in the day (camp- wise). Most of the lines are tossed off although there are wonderful performances by a very few outstanding character actors. The action scenes are mundane but it is fun to see Dan Blocker play a tough guy who likes bashing toughs. And Lanie Kazan and Racquel Welsh are at the voluptuous peak of their careers. Amazing to note they were both 28 years old and Mr. Sinatra was 53. The musical score, wait . . . was there a score? Well, you get the point. Watch it with friends who want a good laugh. it's full of them. | 0neg
|
Terrible film with Frank Sinatra as Tony Rome. Here, he gets involved with a dead woman below the sea.<br /><br />Rome is soon hired to find out what happened to a woman. Naturally, it's the woman below the sea. Her room mate, Lainie Kazan, soon winds up dead on the floor.<br /><br />An aging Richard Conte plays a police officer and friend of Rome. When a local club owner gets killed, the blame falls on Rome and there becomes an interesting chase scene. That's how bad this picture is if you have to depend on a chase scene to supply the action.<br /><br />Raquel Welch plays the beauty up to her neck in intrigue. Her acting leads a lot to be desired. <br /><br />Martin Gabel is a retired hoodlum whose son is trying to outdo him.<br /><br />By the film's end, you don't know why the girl was murdered. Don't even bother to ask. | 0neg
|
Detective Tony Rome (Frank Sinatra) returns to the screen after his self titled debut, this time it's a film that's played for erm
laughs. While on a diving trip, Rome finds the body of a blonde beauty at the bottom of the sea, her feet as you might expect, encased in cement. Rome immediately on the case after being hired by man mountain Waldo Gronsky. Rome finds himself immediately at risk as he has to investigate some mafia types, who turn the tables on him and he is himself found to be the main suspect, he must now go on the run and hope to solve the case alone. The portly Sinatra tries hard to sell us the lame jokes and make us believe he is a good detective, oh and not to mention being sexually attractive to the foxy Raquel Welch, but he fails miserably, in this ham fisted vanity project. The frankly laughable denouement that surrounds every female is quite astounding, every woman in the film is a dither head, who likes bending over is front of the camera, Director Douglas of course obliges in zooming in on the cracks of their asses each time as they flex their posterior muscles. There's even a ridiculously campy gay character that beggars belief, this was a film made by "real men" for "real men" to reaffirm their own flagging sexuality, it's a shameful shambles. | 0neg
|
Lady in Cement - PI spoof with ole Blue Eyes.Frank Sinatra is a shamus on a houseboat in Miami in this rarely funny "comedy".Burdened by an annoying and repetitious Hugo Montenegro score and bunch of misfiring punchlines this 1968 flick just never rises above slightly too bawdy to be on TV made for television movie status.Dan Blocker is effective in the Mike Mazurski/Ted De Corsia big galoot role and Raquel Welch should thank her personal trainer.The only thing that makes the DVD worth keeping or seeing is the collection of cheesy trailers for Welch flicks like Bandolero,Fantastic Voyage , Mother ,Jugs & Speed and Myra Breckinridge.Even if you get the DVD-skip the predictable movie and go for the trailer library in the special features.Besides tons of mysoginistic asides-Sinatra lisps @ the homosexual owners of the local Go-Go bar.A relic that needs to be put back in the time capsule. D | 0neg
|
No doubt Frank Sinatra was a talented actor as well as a talented singer. After all, very few actors nowadays can get a scene just right in one take, and that was pretty much Sinatra's modus operandi on set.<br /><br />I feel that as the 1960's wore on, the quality of the man's films really started to tank. The Tony Rome detective series was nothing short of trying to compete with Dean Martin's Matt Helm series which came out at the same time. Perhaps even a James Bond competition, but nothing really worked for Frank during these years. His personal life in shambles, his music fading out...Sinatra appeared more like a throwback to the 1950's. The last great Sinatra film of this period was probably Von Ryan's Express in 1965. | 0neg
|
I am not from America and I know what 'Wife Swap' is. When a show came out of that name I was thrilled to see some cool glamorized sexual moments from the program. But what I got was a real sucking stupidity. I was misjudged by its title name, it has no adult contents, no nudity, not even vulgar dialogues (broad casted threw Hallmark channel and I think they edited/mute out such contents to make it neat).<br /><br />A show which gives a picture of current American/western family state, overweight chubby peoples, polluted teenagers, and their sucking family goings. In each episode two wives/two mothers (more correctly) were chosen to live in each others home and re-changes each others family routine with their new own rule. Sometimes its turns out to be good or more evenly bad. On the ending section each mothers are brought back with their husband and try to conclude what they did to each families past days. It's the sucking portion of the program were each contenders fights for their rights. I was sucked to see all of these instead of seeing some cool adult sex stuff. I mean who make this program, more than that who gave the name "Wife Swap"; its better to be called as "Mother Swap". All in all it corrupts all the great things the real Wife Swap stands for! <br /><br />Wife Swap = Average Sucking Reality Show. | 0neg
|
If this guy can make a movie, then I sure as hell can make one too.<br /><br />In fact, if you hire me to make a movie for you, I promise to do the following:<br /><br />1) I will add more naked women. This movie had none. I think cheesy B-class horror movies are only rented because of their traditional exploitation of the female body. I wouldn't want to let my viewers down.<br /><br />2) I will refrain from making too many scenes where the hero wakes up to find out it's only a dream. I think HorrorVision had about 4 of these scenes. And, considering the movie was only like an hour long, the dream-to-movie-length ratio was quite high. And, if I do decide to do a dream sequence, I will make sure that the person wakes up without clothes on. I mean, who sleeps in leather pants??<br /><br />3) I will not rip off any movies like Star Wars or the Matrix because I will know that my budget is small and I will not want to mask my contempt for big-budget Hollywood movies by adding satirical references about them in mine. <br /><br />4) And finally, I will not mix modern technology with the undead. I mean, a palm pilot can only be so scary ... at least they turned it into an evil rolly-polly monster before the screen blew up or something.<br /><br />So, if you are looking for the above qualities in your next horror production, count on me: wanna-b-movie director extraordinaire. | 0neg
|
I found Horrorvision almost unwatchable. While only 70 minutes in length I still found myself hitting the fast forward button again and again. The acting was of the `if I scream and say ***k a lot I'm intense' school. And the story was at best a scenario that had yet to be fleshed out.<br /><br />While I never go to Full Moon for great film making I have never seen them produce as bad a piece of junk as this. | 0neg
|
Decent enough with some stylish imagery however the tiny budget hampers things.<br /><br />I also get the impression they were trying to shock you with some of the graphic weirdo perv website stuff.<br /><br />if you like anime in particular stuff like cyber city and the AD police then this might up your street.<br /><br />but basically its low budget matrix cash in however not totally devoid of its own style.<br /><br />Great soundtrack by some unheard of grunge/punk/post grunge bands. Worth checking out if only for the soundtrack. | 0neg
|
At first look of the plot tagline I figured it could have been a decent film. Could I have ever been more wrong? The beginning of the film makes it look like a bunch of freaks got together and decided to make a low budget film. For the first 10 minutes you don't notice the cheesy acting, horrible sound and god-awful special effects, but then it gets worse. Just about 20 minutes into it I was asking myself, "What was the plot again?" I could only ask that question when I wasn't busted out laughing from the sheer lameness of this film. The main actor has one setting for emotions and he sticks to it throughout the entire film, even though he was supposed to go through love and hate and everything in-between. The flashback scene almost made me vomit because it made me re-live one extra minute of footage from earlier in the movie. Now we hit the middle of the film where they are obviously trying to rip off Morpheus from "The Matrix," although he is doing just a horrible job. The actor's talking about "Star Wars" and fortune cookie phrases is almost unbearable. Now at the end of the movie you don't realize that it's the end of the movie because you actually think the plot is finally developing. The "Morpheus" character dies, the ONLY good thing about the movie. He utters a couple words and the credits roll. What is this? No plot, bad acting, cheesy everything, it couldn't get any worse. Please, if you value human decency, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE! | 0neg
|
save your money. i have been a fan of fullmoon productions for a long time and i have never seen them make a movie as bad as this. the casting is terrible, the story is even worse and the special affects are worse than any movie iv'e seen sence the 80's. this movie is so bad i cant even suggest renting it. | 0neg
|
Before the Internet this movie could never have been made but the idea that the Web is full of evil is the idea behind it.Unfortunately thats all it was-the generally opinion that nowadays the Web in the wring hands can create as much chaos as anything in real life. Since the late 90s somebody found out that you could create a virus which would disable a computer.The point? Just to do something plain evil by remote control so its the cyber equivalent of robbery with violence.Which is basically what spam is without the violence-its conning you into parting with your money and has been going so long its a wonder anybody takes any notice of it nowadays so they get cleverer and use real names as doing something illegal isn't a priority, We see the Internet get worse by the week-the social networking sites or chat room which lead to evil and the child porn sites which ARE illegal. So the idea of a movie which invites people to click a name is just the same old thing-there actually IS a site called Horrorvision which is a porn site-but this one KILLS the people who enter its portals. The story though is so disjointed its boring with it and comes to no conclusion. The definitive movie on this theme of destroying an Internet Service Provider has yet to be made but clearly many DO need destroying as they won't be shut down when there's money to be made. Calling this a horror film is rather misleading as it bores not frightens | 0neg
|
This is crap....utter crap. I cannot believe any company could even get people to work on a film like this. Full Moon has a number of awful films, but this has got to be the worst. First off, the plot doesn't exist. It's odd. It's like, they took an idea for the story, and kind of never really got around to developing it. They seemed to have just wasted a lot of time filming outside shots while the two "heroes" drove around in the desert, and Bradbury talks nonsense for about 10 minutes. There were two scenes in the movie (when Dez and Dazzy are driving, and when Dez and Bradbury are driving) where it just went on and on and on...it was almost like 2 music videos in the place where there should have been some dialog or action. They just drove for about 5 minutes, with nothing but music and shots of the surrounding landscape.<br /><br />Next, we come to the acting, which is simply horrible. First off, the girl who plays Dazzy is just a beast. She is so scary looking, I wanted to look away when she was on screen! Horrible casting. Then, you have the guy who played Dez, who couldn't act if his life depended on it. His "crying" is actually funny, and his madman antics are even funnier. The guy who plays the desk clerk at the hotel is just as bad, as is the guy who plays Bradbury. There was no acting that deserves any recognition in this movie whatsoever.<br /><br />The makeup effects...hmmm, can anyone say pathetic? The "effects" were so fake, they were laughable. The crazy little robot looking catepillar thing grabs onto someone, they cut away, and when they come back, the guy has a completely fake looking flesh wound. Nice. Did they run out of money on the makeup budget or what?! I must say the druggie chick who is in the one girl's apartment...nice makeup there too. I think they were going for a drugged look, and I think she was supposed to have a black guy, but it looked more like cheap zombie makeup for halloween.<br /><br />This movie is just horrible from the start. The story is stupid and very, very unoriginal, the direction looks as tho it was performed by a 10 year old, the acting is the lowest of the low, and so on. STAY AWAY from this movie at all costs. It's only 70 minutes long in the first place, and atleast 20 minutes of that is taken up by either music and no dialog or the character sitting around in the hotel. Do not waste your time on this piece of garbage. | 0neg
|
A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child, the fifth installment in the Nightmare on Elm Street series and the worst sequel ever in the series, even worse than A Nightmare on Elm Street 2. I was lucky enough to get the Nightmare on Elm Street DVD box set for my birthday and I watched all the sequels. The dream child was the worst without a doubt, I was surprised too since they were doing so well with the last two sequels. But I guess they just lost the charm, the story was just ridicules and I wasn't happy with where it went. Alice just became more annoying, she's not Nancy or Kirsten, so her carrying this film on her own didn't work for me. Freddy is also loosing his scare, this was just getting a bit silly.<br /><br />Alice is back and she's carrying a child, she couldn't be happier with her life. But Freddy is also back and he's not going to be too light on her since she defeated him so easily in the fourth movie. But anyways, he wants her child and to be born into the world again. Did you ever wonder if Freddy had parents too? Well that's what A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child investigates and Alice soon finds out what Freddy's childhood was like and that maybe that's the one thing that can defeat him.<br /><br />A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child is just all in all a bad movie and an insult to the series. I don't think anyone could be happy with this sequel. Just the story was really silly, I mean it could have possibly worked, but once again, it was just executed the wrong way. I know that if you're looking to see the sequels for the Nightmare on Elm Street series, you should watch it, but I really wouldn't recommend it, it's not worth it, at least in my opinion.<br /><br />3/10 | 0neg
|
After the success of Part 4, another sequel was a natural move. However they should have stopped it before it began. Alice, having survived Part 4 finds herself pregnant and it seems Freddy is using her unborn child to get at his victims, which of course are Alice's friends. Strange Nightmare movie, very heavy on religious imagery and bad acting. The special effects are good, but the movie itself is not. | 0neg
|
The only thing that prevented this flick from being a total disaster were a couple of interesting stylish touches. <br /><br />(Moderate Spoiler Alert) Death by comic is a bit derivative of a scene in Twilight Zone: The Movie, which delivers death by cartoon. Still this was handled nicely, especially watching the ink bleed and the color being sapped out.<br /><br />Additionally, there is one other good scene with a demon motorcycle.<br /><br />Having said that, I was glad I got the DVD cheap at a store going out of business sale, because this was pretty awful. I bought "Soul Survivors" at the same time and both movies were similarly annoying with the constant realizations that you have been watching a dream. However , where "Soul Survivors" has nothing to redeem it, or have it make any sense, this at least had a couple of stylish notes, referred to above.<br /><br />Interestingly, the DVD lets you go to the 8 'nightmares' where something actually happens, which is the only way to watch this. The scripting between the creative gore moments is rather unbearable.<br /><br />3 out of 10. | 0neg
|
When you look back at another bad Nightmare sequel like Freddy's Revenge, you have to at least give it some credit for trying something new. And although The Dream Child is more enjoyable it offers absolutely nothing new to the series. Yes, there's the creative deaths as usual, like a kid becoming part of a comic book and facing "Super Freddy" but even scenes like that aren't used to their full potential and the parts without Freddy are just boring.<br /><br />This marked the official death of scariness to the series. Freddy seems to be the comedic relief now...but to what?<br /><br />My Rating: 4/10 | 0neg
|
I will stat of with the plot Alice, having survived the previous instalment of the Nightmare series, finds the deadly dreams of Freddy Krueger starting once again. This time, the taunting murderer is striking through the sleeping mind of Alice's unborn child. His intention is to be "born again" into the real world. The only one who can stop Freddy is his dead mother, but can Alice free her spirit in time to save her own son? This movie did start of really well as we see Alice dreaming of being Amanda Kruger who get stuck in room and get raped by 100 Manics then she being rushed to hospital but then she not longer the pregnant lady but then she Amanda giving birth to Freddy again.<br /><br />Alice and Dan are the only two people to return from the 4th movie and then have gotten some new Friends its' no long before Freddy start to kill again, I did like the first dead it okay, not as good as the other deaths or dreams.<br /><br />Freddy himself didn't seem to be Scary in this movie at all, the nightmare were just boring really they were not scary or creepy at all.<br /><br />Acting in movies was okay for a 5th movie in the series but overall I think this movie was really Dull. (Still not worst movie of the series, Freddy Dead is the worst)<br /><br />4/10 | 0neg
|
"The Dream Child" of 1989 is the fifth film in the (generally overrated) "Nightmare" series, and at the latest from this point on, the series became total garbage. The only good films in the series were Wes Craven's 1984 original, and the third part, "The Dream Warriors" of 1987. The second part was disappointing and boring, and it was the fourth part in which the formerly scary madman Freddy Krueger began to annoy with constant idiotic jokes. This fifth entry to the series has hardly anything to recommend except for (admittedly great) visuals, and one creepy scene, a flashback sequence to how Freddy Krueger came into existence. The rest of the film consists mainly of our razor-clawed maniac-turned-jokester yelling stupid one-liners, and the old formula of a bunch of teenage jackasses, who desperately try to avoid falling asleep, because good old Freddy awaits them in their dreams. Lisa Wilcox is back in the role of Alice Johnson, and a bunch of uninteresting crap, such as a super-dumb 'eerie' children's rhyme is added for no other reason than to have some sort of justification for making this superfluous and boring sequel... In Short: No originality, just a decline of the old formula, and an over-load of painfully annoying jokes. My (generous) rating of 3/10 is due to the great visuals, and especially to emphasize the difference to the terrible next sequel, "Freddy's Dead", which is awful beyond belief. In case you're not a hardcore Freddy Krueger enthusiast, "The Dream Child" should be avoided, and even if you are, this is more than likely to disappoint. | 0neg
|
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Alice, having defeated Freddy at the end of the last film, is now trying to re-adjust her life. But her unborn child is carrying a demonous presence- Freddy, trying to come out into their world again.<br /><br />It's interesting to note the directors who got their big breaks directing Freddy films- Charles Russell (Eraser, The Mask) Renny Harlin (The Long Kiss Goodnight, Cutthroat Island, Cliffhanger, Die Hard 2) and here Stephen Hopkins (Lost in Space, Predator 2.) But while Russell and Harlin made a good job of it, Hopkins IMO has made something of a podge with this entry, that should be quickly forgotten.<br /><br />The story is clearly being stretched as far as it can go here, with Freddy ludicrously a father himself and the ridiculous looking demon baby. Even at about an hour and a half, it all gets rather tiresome, and of course, not scary at all.<br /><br />The "bon appetit, bitch" catch-phrase is the only memorable point of this other wise very forgettable entry. * | 0neg
|
Like Freddy's Revenge, this sequel takes a pretty weird idea and doesn't go to great lengths to squeeze a story out of it. Basically Alice from number 4 is pregnant and her baby is haunted by Freddy which gives him an outlet to haunt her friends. This has the least deaths out of the whole series and the wise-cracks are quite poor, so neither the horror fans or comedy fans are happy. <br /><br /> I've not alot to say about this. It's moderately interesting to see the characters of Alice and Dan returning from four, but not worth watching a movie over. Uninspriring and unenjoyable, possibly only the competant direction saves it from being the worst in the series. | 0neg
|
I consider this film one of the worst in the Nightmare series. It was so boring that I couldn't remember a thing 20 minutes after the film was over, it even tires me to write a review on it.<br /><br />Okay, #4 was a joke and Freddy was the joker. #5 tried to return to the roots of the series. It was darker and more atmospheric than Nightmare 4, which is a good thing, basically. They tried to shoot a horror film instead of a comedy. Unfortunately they forgot to add suspense and scares. Because of that Nightmare 5: The Dream Child is neither funny nor is it scary. What we actually get is a boring film with the usual bad actors (maybe with the exception of Lisa Wilcox).<br /><br />The plot (Freddy killing Lisa's friends by using the dreams of Lisa's unborn child) has a good base but it just isn't enough for 90 minutes of film. Sometimes the story gets very confusing (maybe because there isn't any) and you can't stop wondering what the filmmakers were aiming at. The screenplay must have had more holes than Swiss Cheese and the film therefore was very cheesy itself (let me say that I don't like cheese though, even if I am from Switzerland). Not even the special effects were as good as for example in part 4.<br /><br />Don't bother to rent/buy this film if not for completeness, it's quite a mess.<br /><br />My rating: 4/10 (get used to it, #6 is also a messy one...) | 0neg
|
I am still trying to determine whether the previous installment was worse than this one, or vice versa. Being that it is nearly fifteen years since I saw this film, the fact that I remember so little about it does not bode well. Perhaps it is simply because I only watched it once or twice, but I doubt it. If there was anything worth remembering about this film, you can rest assured I would remember it.<br /><br />At the time this film was released, the franchise was still entering its dying phase, so a lot of media coverage was allotted to it. It's never a good sign when teenie pop magazines contain explanations of the plot basics. One such article had to explain that Freddy was left too weak to infest the dreams of grown humans, so he decides to go after Alice's unborn son. So far, so good, but this is the job of the writer or the director to explain to the audience. It should not be left to some unrelated publication.<br /><br />Making use of the trivia given in part three about Freddy's conception, one could half expect scenes that would lift this joke out of the "horror for infants" category, but alas, that was not to be. It goes to show the sheer idiocy of the American ratings system that a piece of B'harni-esque garbage like this could get the same rating as a genuinely frightening piece like the original.<br /><br />By this time, the franchise could not attract anyone with an active career. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, Lisa Wilcox was there to provide a quotient of competent acting. Or perhaps she just looks competent by comparison to the rest of the cast. Either way, given that her last role was in something called The All New Adventures of Chastity Blade, I doubt she really had anything else going for her. Even poor old Robert Englund has been in better productions than that in the past fifteen years.<br /><br />Given that box office returns were in a steady decline, and not just for this franchise, at the time, one would have thought that the studios would realize neutering their films does not make them more saleable. In fact, this particular film, like its immediate predecessor, was so neutered that not only did it fail to attract a new audience, both succeeded in alienating the core audience that originally supported the franchise. Despite this, part five must be given some credit for not having the bright, luminescent feeling that made part four so insulting to look at.<br /><br />I gave A Nightmare On Elm Street Part Five a one out of ten. By trying to appeal to everyone, or the MPAA's idea of everyone, it succeeds in appealing to noone. Like parts two and four, one could erase it from the continuity entirely, and nobody would notice the difference. | 0neg
|
This film is so incredibly bad, that I almost felt sick watching it. Up until this point, the other installments had at least one good thing about it. Part 1 was suspenseful and gory. Part 2 was off beat and entertaining. Part 3 was interesting with great effects. Part 4 had great music, good special effects, and a new entertaining Freddy Krueger. Part 5 is more boring than anything I've ever seen before. Alice, a much prettier blond, from Part 4 is back with her boyfriend Dan. At parts, this supposed Elm Street installment turns into a daytime soap. The newer characters seem harsh, and even that sweet Alice has a chip on her shoulder. Freddy seems to be completely out of this one. He looks tired, and doesn't seem to be as gruesome. His one-liners seem out of place and different, where as in Part 4 they could be pretty funny. Leslie Bohem's story never gets off the ground and Stephen Hopkins' direction is so bad, that it makes my grandmother look good! The whole plot of this movie is ridiculous and unrealistic. It's also confusing and pretty stupid. Avoid Part 5 at all costs! | 0neg
|
It's getting worse, the series is on a serious down fall. The first two sequel were acceptable and from then on we have seen a buch of really, really terrible movies. Robert Englund gives another great performance as Freddy but the rest of the cast can't act. The story is Alice, having survived the previous installment of the Nightmare series, finds the deadly dreams of Freddy Krueger starting once again. This time, the taunting murderer is striking through the sleeping mind of Alice's unborn child. His intention is to be "born again" into the real world. The only one who can stop Freddy is his dead mother, but can Alice free her spirit in time to save her own son? Check out the first three, miss the next three then watch the last one. | 0neg
|
Bottom-of-the-Freddy barrel. This is the worst film in the series, beating "Freddy's Revenge" for that title. A cheap-looking (with mediocre special effects), incoherent mess, with Freddy turned into a punster. He has one or two cool lines, but that doesn't save this illogical and sloppy sequel. | 0neg
|
Come on. The new twist is nearly ok, but from avenging the Elm Street children Freddy is just killing people now. More of the same: Special effects with no actual character development or anything. Simply bad and insulting. SCARY..? Nope. Not at all. Just bad. | 0neg
|
This one is just like the 6th movie. The movie is really bad. It offers nothing in the death department. The one-liners are bad and are something that shouldn't be in a NOES movie. Freddy comes off as a happy child in the whole movie. Lisa Wilcox is still the only thing that makes this one worth while. The characters are extremely underdeveloped. All in all better than the 6th one, but still one the worst movies of the series. My rating 2/10 | 0neg
|
A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child<br /><br />This is a bad movie. There's no escaping it. I love the series and I think Freddy is probably the best character ever in horror movies. But even being a fan I can't help but see this movie is mediocre.<br /><br />There's not even an effort to build an interesting story and strong characters. By now they had just given up. They don't even try. They are the production of course, hoping for a few more easy dollars.<br /><br />The story doesn't grab your attention. Its so simple it's almost absent.<br /><br />Alice, a survivor from part 4 is now pregnant. Freddy is coming back through the baby's dreams. At the beginning we learn that to stop him Alice must find his mother. And that's it. <br /><br />The story advances slowly since there's so little plot meaning it turns pretty boring after a few minutes of bad dialogues and awful acting. In fact that's the only scary thing, the acting, since the deaths are not even slightly cool. <br /><br />The characters are so uninteresting we couldn't care less for them.<br /><br />The girls are as unattractive as possible. The whole cast reminded me of a bad amateur theatre group. I've seen better actors in school plays. It's embarrassing really.<br /><br />Lisa Wilcox still manages to bring some class to this. She is beautiful, sexy and has some talent. But the material just didn't let her shine. What a pity.<br /><br />Stephen Hopkins work is nowhere close to Renny Harlin´s brilliant direction in Dream Master. He tries some imaginative shots near the end but that tension Harlin and Craven created so well in the previous movies is no where to be found.<br /><br />The Dream Child is just another unimaginative sequel. It's the kind of movie that give horror series a bad name. <br /><br />The end for the once scary Freddy. It's too sad to see him now. A clown that's not funny. A bad joke. Goodbye Freddy. | 0neg
|
What happened? Those were the first words to come to mind after this awful movie finished for the first and last time on my computer screen. Nightmare on Elm St. had gone noticeably downhill after it's cult-classic of a first film, but I doubt anybody expected this horrible aberration. Nobody expected this cosmic joke of a film, and nobody is more distraught about it than I am.<br /><br />This is by far the worst ANOES film of the lot. It doesn't seem too bad at the beginning, with a genuinely creepy intro and a rather elongated shower scene featuring Alice. But then we hit rock bottom right at the beginning with bad acting and a jumbled sequence of events. I mean, sure, Freddy movies are supposed to be dreamlike and creepy, but this one is like a train-wreck in it's poor sequencing of events and awful plot setup. It feels like you're coming down with a terrible headache, not like you're getting scared. So the directing totally fails. None of the suspense and well crafted horror from previous sequels is found here, and even the death scenes are mostly just crass and moronic (the death by food especially), except for that one cool scene that's crafted like a comic book battle. That's why this movie gets a point.<br /><br />The storyline...lame, lame, lame, LAME. It was an excuse to gross people out and to make the MPAA mad, and nothing more.<br /><br />The acting...should I mention how Freddy has been turned into a childish boogey-man-like clown figure? How his rebirth scene made him look like a monster out of a 7 year old's horror book instead of the foreboding and nightmarish dream killer we've all known and loathed since the first film? That arm waving and stupid chuckling as he appeared again...ugh. And his one liners, too. Throughout the whole movie, they suck. Badly. A grade-schooler could come up with funnier stuff then the vomit Freddy spews throughout the 90 minute duration of the film. Hell, a chimpanzee could come up with much funnier lines than what Freddy's been told to say here. Who wrote the script for this? This movie is really irritating, too. It seems so pointless. Like a gnat buzzing around your head, a gnat that just WON'T go away. Freddy is just an annoyance now. We've seen him so many times before. This one's nothing different, and a lot of the time you just want him to take his awful one-liners and get off your TV screen. Alice, instead of the thoughtful and quiet girl from the last movie, seems annoying and very shallow, and this is obviously due to the horrible, horrible script this movie was fitted with. Lisa Wilcox may be a great actor, and sometimes it shines through the cracks here, but she can't save this movie. The other actors just suck, mostly.<br /><br />The last 15 or 20 minutes of Freddy's existence in this film are awful and embarrassing. I hope Englund was ashamed of this. Who wants to see Freddy running around like a mutated gorilla with his limbs stretched out, laughing like a cartoon villain? This movie destroyed anything positive I felt for the Nightmare series. I can't ever watch them again without this image running through my head; of the mangled cartoon abomination that Krueger became. He was slowly becoming a jokey, retarded pop culture icon, but this is the lowest of the low. This is rock bottom. Nobody will ever take Freddy Krueger seriously again after seeing this film. He's naught but a joke, a clown that is long overdue for retirement. Pathetic.<br /><br />Of all the movies I could hate, why did it have to be Nightmare on Elm St, a series which I once adored and liked a lot? The Dream Child represents the death of a legend, and the shattering of any hope I had in the Nightmare on Elm St. series. Freddy would go on to continue his downward spiral into clown status in the next installment, Freddy's Dead (which was more entertaining than this was, actually), and then he would go on to bring down the mood in Freddy VS Jason, and finally he would putter out into nothing, which is for the best.<br /><br />I know this has mostly been a rant about why Freddy sucks now, but this movie is overall, horrible, and one of the worst movies ever made. Not recommended to anyone, and even ANOES completionists won't want to see this one again. | 0neg
|
About twenty minutes into this movie, I was already bored. Quite simply, these characters were fairly dull. Occasionally, something enjoyable would happen, but then things would slow down again. Fortunately, my patience was eventually rewarded, and the ending to this movie wasn't bad at all. However, it was by no means good enough to justify sitting through the first ninety minutes. So, I would say that the movie was mediocre overall, and considering all of the talent in the cast, I'd call this a disappointment. | 0neg
|
This movie introduces quite an array of characters and their relationships in the first half-hour or so. None of them generate any interest or positive response. I waited for the intrigue to begin, hoping things would get better and ended up sticking around until the bitter end, but there was no reward for doing that.<br /><br />If you want a synopsis, look elsewhere. To me the action isn't worth recounting. Not that the story was that bad, I guess you could say I had some problems with the script--i.e. I thought it stunk. A look at the credits will show you that there's a pretty strong cast here, used to no avail. Most of the old pros in this flick do good jobs; of the actors I hadn't seen much of before I especially liked Deborah Kara Unger. That's about all that I can find good to say about this picture. | 0neg
|
I am glad to see most other people here don't think much of this movie, either. It has some big names in the cast, but that's it. There is nothing else to recommend, save ogling a few pretty women which you can do in a thousand films.<br /><br />The story involves nothing but unlikable, self-centered, chain-smoking, "hip" characters that national film critics all seem to like....and most of the public can't stand. <br /><br />The Oklahoma accents are so fake they are laughable, the southern racist stereotypes are right from Liberal Hollywood 101 and the story is depressing. | 0neg
|
This is a genuinely horrible film. The plot (such as it is) is totally undecipherable. (I think it has something to do with blackmail, but I'm not entirely certain.)<br /><br />Half of the dialogue consists of useless cliches. The other half is spoken by the various actors in such unintelligible imitations of "southern" accents that (thankfully) the words cannot be recognized.<br /><br />But the one true tragedy of the movie is that such a historic talent as Mary Tyler Moore apparently was in such dire financial or personal circumstances that she appeared in it.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
If you want to see a mystery, don't watch this. Though there are elements straight out of Elmore Leonard territory, this comes closer to an episode of "Dynasty", since the filmmaker focuses on "character development" - i.e. long, boring talks between stupid, un-involving characters. Some people can make fascinating movies without real action (see "Exotica"), but not this one. Avoid it, especially if you like the actors involved in this one. | 0neg
|
I have to admit, I don't remember much about the characters or the story, though I'm not sure there was one, I was soooo irritated by this movie that I had a bit of a hard time focusing on it. How can you name a movie "Keys to Tulsa" and then film it in Texas? The flat desert country around Arlington ( I think that was the location) in no way resembles the green rolling hills around Tulsa, and a celebrity in Tulsa would have a much nicer neighborhood to live in. Obviously no one in the movie has EVER BEEN to Tulsa or else they would have realized how nothing in the movie even resembled it. Hadn't anyone at least seen Rumblefish or The Outsiders? I know this sounds picky but I can't help it. I watched this because I love James Spader and I usually find Eric Stotz interesting. But even these two intriguing actors could not liven up this meandering,and mean story of self-involved people who are NOT IN TULSA!! I'm sorry, it can't be more expensive to film in Oklahoma. What if "To Live and Die in LA" had been shot in Toronto? Would that suck? Well so does this. | 0neg
|
Perhaps the biggest waste of production time, money and the space on the video store shelf. If someone suggests you see this movie, run screaming in the other direction. Unless, of course, you're into self-abuse. | 0neg
|
The director tries to be Quentin Tarantino, the screenwriters try to be Tennessee Williams, Deborah Kara Unger tries to be Faye Dunaway, the late James Coburn tries to be Orson Welles, Michael Rooker tries to be Gene Hackman, Mary Tyler Moore tries to be Faye Dunaway (older version), Cameron Diaz tries to get out of the frame as quickly as she can (successfully), don't ask about Joanna Going. Eric Stoltz and James Spader try to conceal their embarrassment with this crappy stuff. It delivers endless, meaningless dialog and very little action.<br /><br />Tulsa is a town with beautiful elevator lobbies, an art deco church by Bruce Goff and a lovely, sprawling mansion by Frank Lloyd Wright. Visit Tulsa, don't watch this movie. It doesn't do the location justice. | 0neg
|
Saw it at UCSB's reel loud festival and was *shocked* that it won the golden reel award. I wasn't the only one, considering the audience had mixed reactions to the piece. I thought there were many other better flicks out there, but then I learned that the judges were heavily rooted within the area of film theory and other artsy crap. While the cinematography and editing are on par with many other shorts out there, the storytelling is nothing more than your average student piece. Seems as though "serious" student films need to include one of these categories: sex, intrapersonal struggle, and eventual suicide -- Nick and Kate cops out and includes all three. Please, be more original!<br /><br />Oh, and it might be my outsider's opinion, but the guy from montecito sounds a little fake. Does anyone else thing so? | 0neg
|
I have been familiar with the fantastic book of 'Goodnight Mister Tom' for absolutely ages and it was only recently when I got the chance to watch this adaption of it. I have heard lots of positive remarks about this, so I had high hopes. Once this film had finished, I was horrified.<br /><br />This film is not a good film at all. 'Goodnight Mister Tom' was an extremely poor adaption and practically 4.5/10 of the book was missed out. Particularly, I found that a lot of the characters and some great scenes in the book were not in this. There was not much dialogue, It was rushed and far too fast-moving, but I was mostly upset by the fact that you never got to see the bonding and love between William Beech and Tom in this film which was a true let down. The casting was not all that good,either. I thought this could have been really good, but it was so different to the book! Anextremely poor adaption, one of the worst I've seen. This deserves a decent remake that'd better be 1000 times better than this pile of garbage. | 0neg
|
Goodnight, Mister Tom begins in an impossibly exquisite village in the south of England where the sun always seems to shine. Before we have much idea of the period we hear a radio announcement of the declaration of World War II. Soon a train blowing clouds of steam brings refugee children from London and when shy little William is billeted with reluctant, gruff old Tom (who you just know will turn out to have a heart of gold) our tale begins.<br /><br />And what a load of sentimental claptrap it is. In fact it's just the old odd-couple buddy formula. Aren't any new stories being written?<br /><br />As I suggested there's hardly any period feel in the village and not much more in London apart from the odd old ambulance rattling around. And certainly no hint of the horror of the Blitz as London's citizens file politely into air-raid shelters. Even when the local schoolteacher's husband is declared missing presumed killed, he is later restored to life.<br /><br />I found `Goodnight, Mister Tom' cliched and obvious and John Thaw's accent conjured up a picture of Ronnie Barker of the Two Ronnies with a straw in his mouth doing his `country bumpkin' accent.<br /><br />Incidentally my wife enjoyed this movie for all the reasons that I disliked it and looking at fellow-imdb reviewers I seem to be in a minority of one.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
I came here for a review last night before deciding which TV movie to settle in front of, and those I found made this one look unmissable. How misled I feel!<br /><br />Firstly, it needs to be pointed out up front that this is very much a housewife's daytime movie. The performances are wooden, every sentence is an attempt at 'poignant' in the way that housewife's daytime movies and bad soap operas always are, and it is based in that predictable and well-trodden premise that men (particularly soldiers) are essentially violent and incompassionate. The whole movie is about the 'drama' apparent in the moments when the male characters threaten to develop a second dimension.<br /><br />If that sounds tolerable (or even enjoyable) to you, then be warned. Linda Hamilton's German accent, while quite good, is painfully distracting - as is her face, for some reason. The other performances are no doubt an enduring source of embarrassment to their perpetrators, with painfully thin and obvious characterizations being the order of the day. There are few surprises, but do watch for the 'Monty Pythonesque' endless supply of food and drink that miraculously appears from the hungry soldiers' knapsacks!<br /><br />I wasn't expecting action, but I had hoped for beautiful or textural or emotionally charged. What I got was a particularly bad Christmas 'feelgood' story that will have an intelligent audience cringing with the crapulence of it all.<br /><br />Watch it under the folowing circumstances: 1: There's nothing else on. 2: You are a fan of predictable 'housewife takes on men and wins' TV movies. 3: The only way you can appreciate a true story is when Hollywood turns it into a feature film. 4: You've imbibed enough nog that your emotions are easily stirred by unsophisticated storytelling. | 0neg
|
Slow, boring, extremely repetitive. No wonder the Weinstein Company did not buy this. This Spurlock should eat more McDonalds while filming himself, and quit producing. There is no way you can watch this and enjoy. The preacher is a joke. The whole idea is not funny. You can make a 2 minute film with this idea not a feature. I am so sorry I rented this movie. I will never watch anything with the name Spurlock on it. It is completely garbage. Filmmakers like this should be on youtube and never be granted a distribution deal. The film states that the American Consumers and their shopping are at fault for the current depression when shopping and buying products, making money circulate in the system are the base of a healthy economy. | 0neg
|
This film is just another distortion, among many distortions, on the so-called 'sins of consumerism'. Please note that 'Reverend Billy', an actor (Bill Talen), is nothing more than a bureaucrat against the 'sins of consumerism'. We might want to ask are questions, like: What does 'Reverend Billy' do for a living? How does he make his money? Does he make his living off his 'tax-deductible' organization? How does the Internal Revenue justify this as a 'tax-deductible' church or organization? <br /><br />Everyone knows that Christmas is commercialized, but it affords one day out of a whole year in which people have an opportunity to be charitable, and allows a significant number of people to spend time with their families, friends, or extended families. Everyone is not charitable. Everyone does not spend time with their families, friends, or extended families. But, holidays and vacation time give people that chance and opportunity. Yes, America does have more than its share of problems--but, with perseverance, Americans have and always make it through great difficulties. And, even in times of strife, America has proved itself to be the greatest country in the world. That happens when Americans pull together and unite, rather than to separate and divide. Yes, there are problems with corporations and monopolies, but it will take Americans to bring back the small businesses, along with the ethics to responsibly care for people living in our individual communities. Yes, globalization has brought us its share of problems, but it will take Americans to bring production back to America. Americans and the U.S. government need to learn how to stay on a budget, no matter how large or small it may be, and we must stop our dependence on credit. Our over-reliance on credit will make, and keep us poor, from the cradle to the grave. It is important to buy--but, if we buy less, we will rely less on credit. And, if we are able to save, even a small amount of money, we will have money for a rainy day. Not to say that, as Americans, we will gain an equal share of wealth. Wealth is not guaranteed, and has never been guaranteed. But, stratification teaches us that only a small percentage of Americans hold most of America's wealth. There is a good proximity that you or I can reach the level of the upper, middle class. And, who knows what can happen from there?!? Be positive, work hard--and, at the very least, you and I will be able to reach at least some (if not all) of our dreams. In life, nothing is guaranteed, but we always have that something to reach for. And, if you or I don't have dreams, we might as well be dead. In America, there is always room for plenty of hopes and dreams. As individuals, we are a part of the pack, but we always can become the leader of the pack.<br /><br />It has always been my experience that churches and religion do offer nothing more than additional distortions, but I pay dignity and give respect to people with other beliefs, values, and perspectives. But, as far as the distortions expressed, within this film, I do not have any faith in such beliefs, values, and perspectives. I rank this film with a 1 out of 10--but, in all honesty and truth, this film deserves a zero. This film has no integrity, and I cannot recommend it. | 0neg
|
the intention the directors has for this films are quite honorable, but his history of his productions did get me aware that this might not get much to the core like other film makers would do it. keeping his great 30 days TV series in mind but also counting in his MTV production "i bet you will" that opposes his seriousness in any of the matters he documents and also counting in his rather disappointing production "supersize me" i did not had my hopes up high. sadly enough this movie disappointed me none the less. as with "supersize me" after a while i did ask myself what exactly the point of all this was. the main statement gets clear enough after half an hour but the rest of the playtime gets filled with rather pointless stuff and re-repeating stuff that were already shown in this way or another earlier in the movie, so it wears out and gets extremely boring towards the end. | 0neg
|
Even if you subscribe to the knee-jerk anti-free-trade politics of this movie, it is still just the same tired note, played again and again and again. Clink clink clink. Even if you can accept a preacher with peroxide hair who advocates a return to first principles, the Reverend Billy is pretty hard to look at as a serious figure. The clownish reverend is the sort who wakes every morning with no aspiration more ethereal than to see his own face on TV before he climbs back into bed that night. He has a pretty wife, I have to admit, but it would take tons more than that to save this dreary mess of a movie. The interminable bus rides are the worst part--with progress shown--can you guess?--by a colored line moving across a map. Aww, you guessed. Oh well, it has the virtue of being short. Is that the only favorable thing I can say? Hmmmm. Yep, afraid so. | 0neg
|
This British pot-boiler has one thing going for it: the young men are uniformly good looking. The older men are opinionated, right-wing Thatcherites whose behavior brings back all the acrimony of the Reagan/Thatcher years. Young or old, however, morals in this three-part mini-series are universally suspect and no one comes off particularly well.<br /><br />Nick is a handsome young gay man fresh out of Oxford. It is not pivotal to the story, but he has an extraordinarily beautiful head of hair which makes watching this drivel much easier. Nick comes to London with a friend, whose father Gerald is a rich conservative politician, and babysits his sister Cat while the family frolics in the south of France. They neglect to inform him that, when upset, Cat cuts herself with an assortment of knives and other kitchen implements. Nick mistakes their self-serving 'gratitude' for affection and moves in, finding out too late just how much they despise and patronize him. Inexplicably, Nick lives in this house for four years but, as the plot depends on this point, it's best not to question it.<br /><br />While Nick is most pleasing to look at, he is unbearably obsequious. His coy subjection to rich bigots soon had me climbing the walls. Deeply closeted except to Cat (she guesses his big secret on sight), he does like a little anonymous sex just so we know he is actually gay. Though it hardly seems possible, Nick takes a lover who is even more closeted than he.<br /><br />Supercilious Tories scorn and insult the two blacks in the film, so imagine the venom which spews forth when Nick's sexual orientation is reported in a tabloid. Gerald, in true Tory fashion, has become involved in several personal and financial scandals, so the revelations about Nick add to his embarrassment. This gives Gerald one final opportunity to roundly castigate the hapless boy.<br /><br />Except for one brief moment of indignation, Nick takes the abuse heaped upon him in silence and tacit agreement. Denial, self-loathing, naiveté, or ignorance? You decide, if you can manage to sit through this whole thing without throwing something at the set. | 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits