text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Well, the artyfartyrati of Cannes may have liked this film but not me I am afraid. If you like the type of film where shots linger for so long that you wonder whether the actor has fallen asleep or the cameraman gone for lunch then it may be for you. A large part of it is like this with short sojourns into the realm of unpleasantness. I did not find it shocking nor disturbing as some other reviewers have - simply a little distasteful and pointless. The only reason I did not give this one star is that the acting is commendable ans the film is fairly well shot. The plot, however, has little to recommend. A large part of the film just shows a grumpy woman teaching or listening to piano, which might appeal to some people. But lest you think this is harmless enough be prepared for some snatches of pornography and sexual violence just to wake you up with a bad taste in your mouth. Not recommended. | 0neg
|
Although I can see the potentially redeeming qualities in this film by way of it's intrigue, I most certainly thought that the painfully long nature in the way the scene structure played out was too much to ask of most viewers. Enormous holes in the screenplay such as the never explained "your father died today" comment by the mother made it even harder to try to make sense of these characters.<br /><br />This won first place at Cannes in 2001 which is a shock considering. Perhaps the French had been starved for film noir that year and were desperate for something as sadistic as this film. I understood the long scenes as a device to keep the viewer as uncomfortable as possible but when matched with the inability to relate to the main character it went too far for me and kept me at arms distance from the story altogether.<br /><br />This is a film for only the most dedicated fan of film noir and one who expects no gratification from having watched a film once it's over. I LOVED movies such as "Trainspotting" or "Requiem for a Dream" - which were far more disturbing but at least gave the viewer something in the way of editing and pacing. To watch this teachers slow and painful silence scene after scene just became so redundant that I found it tedious - and I really wanted to like this film at every turn. | 0neg
|
I rented the video of "The Piano Teacher" knowing nothing about it other than what was written on the video box. I did this with some trepidation because films that win awards at Cannes are usually very good or very bad. Unfortunately, this one falls in the latter category. About one quarter of the way into it I found myself saying out loud, "This movie is boring." About half way through I was saying to myself, "Where have I seen this before?" At the three quarters mark I had figured it out.<br /><br />In spite of its literary origins, this film is essentially a remake of Robert Altman's much earlier (1969), and better, "That Cold Day in the Park." Although the details obviously differ and Altman's work was more plot-driven and less of a character study, the two films are thematically identical. There is nothing "new" to be seen in this production. Every aspect of it has been done before: a character spiralling out of control with increasingly self-destructive behavior (Abel Ferrara's "Bad Lieutenant" 1992); a perverse and doomed 'love' culminating in an operatic (near) death scene (David Cronenberg's "M. Butterfly" 1993); uncommonly brutal sex scenes (David Lynch's "Blue Velvet" 1986); and so on. Hence, I am bemused by the fact that so many found the film to be "shocking," "shattering," etc. This highly derivative film seems to have been made for the sole purpose of making viewers feel uncomfortable, and clearly succeeded with some. However, I largely attribute such a reaction to a lack of film-viewing experience. See enough movies and you really will, eventually, have seen it all. And while it is true that I saw the expurgated 'R-rated' version, I doubt that the additional scenes would change my overall opinion of "The Piano Teacher."<br /><br />Technically, the film is not without merit. There is some very good camera work and the lighting is excellent. Isabelle Huppert's creditable performance also helps save it from being a waste of time. This is the first of Haneke's films that I've seen, and if I were to see more I expect I would have the same opinion of him that I have of Ferrara: an interesting director but not nearly the genius others make him out to be. Rating: 4/10. | 0neg
|
I read the reviews of this movie, and they were generally pretty good so I thought I should see it. I'm a big Francophile and art film lover, but I believe this is yet another case in which the critics make something "arty" or "intellectual" into something it is not. I will be blunt: it contains scenes of sexual perverseness that I never, ever wanted to actually see. Obviously, the piano teacher has some major psychological issues, but I really did not want to see them displayed so graphically. The film is, in essence, disgusting. I mean, when I saw Requiem for a Dream, I was repulsed by the last sort of scene with Jennifer Connelly, but that was not anywhere near the sort of disgust and repulsion I felt during this film. | 0neg
|
I've seen all kinds of "Hamlet"s. <br /><br />Kenneth Branagh's was most ambitious, Mel Gibson's was quick and to the point, Laurence Olivier's was the best - hands down. But now we come to Maximilian Schell's take on the Bard.<br /><br />For one, this is a dubbed version of a German TV production of William Shakespeare's venerable chestnut. But if there's a slower, more plodding, more lethargic and worse-staged version out there somewhere, it must have been acted at grade school-level. <br /><br />Having seen it on MST3K helps, with Mike and the robots taking jolly good jabs at the old boy, puncturing the profundity of black and white TV, Shakespeare and the wisdom (?) of Germans acting out an English play and making it look like an Ingmar Bergman reject.<br /><br />Of course, the best parts are the MST riffs. Best lines? "I'm gonna unleash the Great Dane", "I don't think so, 'breather'", "Meet the Beatles", "Hey, Dad, will you help me with my science project" and, my personal favorite, during a party - "Garrison Keillor's leaving Germany (YAAAY!!)".<br /><br />But then there's Schell, playing Shakespeare's greatest character much like a department store mannequin would, only not as expressive. No doubt he's a great actor, but here he comes off about as well as Paul Newman in "The Silver Chalice". Ever see that one? You GOTTA watch these two on a double-bill!<br /><br />In the end, this is one instance where it's true that you're much better off to just read the book. At least the book isn't dubbed by Ricardo Montalban.<br /><br />One star only for this "Hamlet"; ten stars, naturally, for the MST3K version.<br /><br />Good-night, not-so-sweet prince. | 0neg
|
...this verson doesn't mangle the Bard that badly. It's still a horrible minimalist production, Hamlet's Dutch uncle is inexplicably dubbed by a Spaniard (whether it's Ricardo Montalban or not is subject to debate), and Maximilian Schell overacts like never before. Most of the dialogue makes it through unscathed, and the fact that the MST3K version feels obliged to point out repeatedly that the speeches are long *duh* doesn't strike me as incredibly humorous. Mostly it's just bad acting, though. | 0neg
|
There's really not much need to begin this little review with a plot synopsis. I mean it's Shakespeare's Hamlet for goodness sake probably one of the best known plays ever written. I'm not embarrassed to admit that I came to this version of Hamlet the way most people on IMDb have through Mystery Science Theater 3000. While the show may not be the best venue to use to judge a movie, in this case I cannot imagine attempting to watch it without the comedic quips. In a word, this German, made-for-TV version of Hamlet is dreary. 152 minutes? No way! It's too dark and depressing to be anything I want to spend almost three hours on. I've said it any number of times, but entertainment is the thing for me. And this wrist-slitter is far from entertaining. I will, however, give it a couple of points for what I felt was some reasonably good acting. A 3/10 sounds about right to me.<br /><br />As much as I enjoy MST3K, their comments don't help to make Hamlet any more palatable. There are a few good riffs here and there, but overall, Hamlet is just the wrong movie for MST3K. Shakespeare is far too talky to allow the comedy to have any sort of rhythm or flow. As much as it pains me, I've got to give Hamlet a 1/5 on my MST3K rating scale. | 0neg
|
Take:<br /><br />1. a famous play<br /><br />2. a director with now ideas of his own who is using<br /><br />3. a copy of the stage design of a popular theatre production of the play mentioned in 1.<br /><br />4. an actor for the lead - who has no feeling for the part he's playing And you'll get: "Hamlet, Prinz von Dänemark"<br /><br />I listened to the radio play of "Hamlet" with Maximilian Schell as Hamlet and I was so disappointed. I hoped that the filmed version would be better, that Schell would at least have a body language to underline what he's saying - nothing. Then the set... the minimalistic design is not everyone's taste, but usually I like it when there's just enough on the stage to make clear what's the setting and nothing more. Alas, that's on a stage, in a theatre. It won't work in a film based on a play that actually has believable settings. That the idea for the set was copied from the theatre production in which Schell played the Hamlet already... let's say if that was the only thing to complain about... I ask myself how Schell could get the part of Hamlet anywhere in first place and how anybody could allow him to play Hamlet a second time. If you've got the choice to view any of the about sixty films based on "Hamlet", don't watch this one, unless you're a masochist, or really hardcore, or like to poke fun on untalented actors. | 0neg
|
Yay!... I think. It's hard to say. It's hard to have an emotion about a movie that has no emotion. This movie is as sterile as a surgeon's scalpel. For a setting, it has a few stone pillars, some stone seats, a couple stone crosses and some stone actors. They have no emotion! The only thing that saves this movie is the fact that it is Hamlet, and Hamlet is a terrificly written piece of literature. The dubbing really wasn't all that bad though. The voices stuck true to the dull, gloomy, dreary, life-sucking atmosphere the movie gave forth. I have seen this version of Hamlet on the fabulous Mystery Science Theater 3000 three times, and each of the three times, I was on the brink of turning off the TV, despite it being MST 3K.<br /><br />Not an uplifting production of a drama that deserves so much better. | 0neg
|
Alas, poor Hamlet. I knew him, dear reader, and let me tell thee, THIS VERSION SUCKS! I don't know who of all people put up the money for this flotsam, but I hope that they're proud of themselves. They took THE classic play and turned it into the most boring melodrama imaginable. This version is quite literally so bad, that not even the presence of a great thespian like Maximilian Schell in the title role can save it. This movie's only redeeming quality is that it made great fodder for "MST3K"; Mike, Servo and Crow had a lot of fun with this one.<br /><br />But either way, I'm sure that Shakespeare, had he been alive when they made this, would not have wanted his name associated with it. This "Hamlet" is not even so bad that's it good; it's just plain bad. Absolutely dreadful. | 0neg
|
note to George Litman, and others: the Mystery Science Theater 3000 riff is "I don't think so, *breeder*".<br /><br />my favorite riff is "Why were you looking at his 'like'?", simply for the complete absurdity. that, and "Right well did not!" over all, I would say we must give credit to the MST3K crew for trying to ridicule this TV movie. you really can't make much fun of the dialog; Bill S was a good playwright. on the other hand, this production is so bad that even he would disown it. a junior high school drama club could do better.<br /><br />I would recommend that you buy a book and read 'Hamlet'. | 0neg
|
I'm a fan of both Shakespeare and MST3K, so I waited anxiously to see this episode. I'll comment on the movie first, then the MST3K episode. The recipe for this movie: take talented actors, rich and beautiful Shakespeare material, and a $1.25 budget. Mix well, then drain of all life and movement, until dull and lifeless. Serve cold in a big, plain stone cauldron. Movie, I give 3 out of 10, because the actors at least deserve a little bit of credit. Okay, now the MST3K episode. I'll admit it, the first time I saw it, I fell asleep halfway through. I understand that was the reaction of several other veiwers as well. However, when I watched it a second time, I realized that there was a whole host of intelligent references and good lines I missed the first time around. The trick with this episode is: listen carefully! It takes a couple of viewings to catch each line. Give it a second chance, and You'll see what I mean. MST3K Episode: 7 1/2 out of 10. | 0neg
|
Poor Will would be rolling over in his grave if he could this this horiible German-TV adaptaion of his classic play. It's obvious that very little money was spent on it. A stage riser, a catwalk and some randomly placed columns pass off as a set. The movie was ineptly dubbed into English, with the English voice actors occasionally mumbling their lines. The whole production had an incredibly dark and dreary feel to it. And just where was Fonterbras in this movie anyway? MST3K gave this sorry production the treatment it justly deserved.<br /><br />To be or not to be? I wish this movie never was in the first place. | 0neg
|
I literally fell asleep 3 times watching this movie. Granted, it's Shakespeare and that takes a certain mindset to be interested or not. But this movie exceeds any barrier of long soliloquies and what not, that may prevent many from just not caring about a Shakespeare based story.<br /><br />The largest roadblock to this production is the complete flatness of the characters. Often during character's interacting, it's nearly difficult to distinguish who's lines are who's. Granted, I believe this movie is dubbed in English. Certainly they could've obtained voice actors which could've added a bit more drama to these classic, literary lines.<br /><br />It would be difficult to rate this movie greater than 1, although perhaps that's based on prejudices of perhaps age and what would seem a very low budget. Still, it's absolutely painful and boring. If you insist on Hamlet, do yourself a favor and read the book again. 1/10 | 0neg
|
Ming The Merciless does a little Bardwork and a movie most foul! | 0neg
|
You all know the story of "Hamlet". I do. <br /><br /> Well, the "To Be Or Not To Be" phrase (not the speech itself) has been beaten into the ground so many times that it's not very interesting (in fact, it wasn't that great to begin with). In FACT, I find "Hamlet" a good but vastly overrated play. It's not even Shakespeare's best: "Julius Caesar" and "Romeo & Juliet" are ten times better, with "A Midsummer Night's Dream" and "Othello" not too far behind. "Macbeth (knock your table, off his drawers, puck will make amends, OW!)" isn't that bad either. There are lots of others that are better than this by Shakespeare.<br /><br /> I won't really comment too much on the movie, rather I will dissect the utterly horrible MST3K episode.<br /><br /> Okay . . . Mike and the Bots win a card game, get to pick the movie . . . they ask for "Hamlet", Pearl sends them this, yadda yadda yadda . . . and prepare for the most boring Sci-Fi episode of MST3K ever (admittedly, I haven't seen any of the CC Ones).<br /><br /> While "Blood Waters of Dr. Z" makes the viewing of that episode horrible, since it is not really a movie, rather random, spliced-together scenes (I'm reminded of Mike's line from "Future War": "Maybe this is an anthology of short, plotless movies"), the SOL Crew a lot got off a good many good cracks. Can't say the same for here.<br /><br /> The riffs fall flat, the host segments (par usual) are at best mediocre, and when the movie itself (which isn't that bad) is actually BETTER (I mean, as a quality movie, not as camp, like "Prince of Space") than the MST3K version of it, you know the show must be bad. I laughed (the last time I saw it was several months ago), oh, maybe eight or nine times throughout. I tried and tried AND TRIED to be entertained - but I just couldn't. Only the occasional line, like "Hail Queen Dilbert's boss!" (and when that's the funniest line of the episode, well, ahem) - and by occasional, I mean every ten minutes or so - maybe me even chuckle. The second time I tried to watch it, I didn't even laugh at the few jokes I'd found funny before, and simply gave up forty minutes before.<br /><br /> The movie isn't horrible; it's just a German version of Hamlet. The actors are good enough, and though the dubbing isn't the greatest, that's not in itself a reason to hate this film. <br /><br /> Four stars for "Hamlet"; THREE, yes THREE for the MST3K version.<br /><br /> PS: WHY WHY WHY, MST3K! | 0neg
|
This Hamlet made for one of the boringest MST3000 episodes ever. I am not a Shakespear fan, but I do not believe he ever intended his works to be this slow paced and drab. It is also one of the hardest movies to find because there are so many Hamlets listed. Like I said though this one is quite boring. It is in black and white, the pacing is slow, and there is minimal scenery. The actors are all dubbed too so that doesn't help. This is the one MST 3000 I can't watch in one sitting cause the way the guy playing Hamlet says his lines can put anyone to sleep. | 0neg
|
Ridiculous horror film about a wealthy man (John Carradine) dying and leaving everything to his four children, and his servants to be divided up equally. One condition--they must spend one week in his estate to get the money. And if any of them die, the others get more. Guess what happens next.... <br /><br />I saw a brand new print of this film on cable. The colors were bright and vivid and the house itself looks beautiful. That's about all the good things I can say about it.<br /><br />Let's list just some of the problems this film has: the killer is screamingly obvious; the servants are called Igor and Elga--come on!; some of the sound recording was so bad I couldn't make out the dialogue (no great loss I'm sure); the gore was sparse and very poorly done; the other murders were simply boring, stupid or impossible and this movie contains some truly abominable acting--so bad you just stare at the screen in disbelief. Even pro Jeff Morrow was terrible! The only fairly good acting was from trouper Faith Domergue (who deserved better than this) and John Carradine (who looks painfully old and frail here). I do have to admit though--the closing line in this movie is a gem!<br /><br />Why this was renamed "Legacy of Blood" is beyond me--there's another 1978 horror film with that name!<br /><br />Whatever its name is, it's a bad movie. To be avoided at all costs. | 0neg
|
***SPOILERS*** With a gathering of family members and servants of the late Christopher Dean, John Carradine, to hear his last will and testament they get somewhat of a surprise in that the Dean fortune, some 140 million dollars. The money is to be divided between them but only after they successfully spend a week at the Dean mansion. There seemed to have been a mix-up in the story when we later find out that it's really an overnight sleepover, not a weeks vacation, at the mansion for the guests to qualify for Dean's money since almost everyone ends up dead by sunrise.<br /><br />The first victim of the Dean Curse have nothing at all to do with getting and money from the departed Christopher Dean estate the local sheriff Dan Garcia, Rodolfo Acosta. Acosta has his head chopped off refrigerated and then served on a platter to a shocked group of guests. Later that evening cute little Chin Greg and Laura's,Jeff Morrow & Marry Anders,little pet pooch is found dead outside floating in the pond.<br /><br />The movie has all the people staying at the Dean Mansion being picked off one by one until it's revealed who the killer really is. We then have what seems to be a double-twist in the story where the original killer is suddenly killed together with two of the last remaining guest. The real killer ends up not only getting all the loot, 140 million dollars, but then ends up not having to split it with his accomplice by doing him, or her, in by giving him a poisonous cookie that kills him on the spot.<br /><br />Nonsensical who done it, and haunted house, movie with a cast of such immoral and unlikable characters that even a mother, much less the audience, would have trouble liking. There's everything you can possibly think of in the move involving the selective guests that includes incest S&M sadism and of course double-dealing and back-stabbing not even counting murder. You just couldn't care less who of the guests survives to collect the Dean fortune at the end of the movie hoping against all hope then none of them do.<br /><br />Even the big surprise at the end isn't really that much of a surprise since the killer's identity is divulged with the film-maker having forgotten to keep his face in the shadows so you actual see who he is even before he reveals himself! We then have a plot-twist that eliminates the killer together with a number of remaining guest just to make the movie a little more confusing then it already is. The final plot-twist, that you can see coming from as far as ten miles away, was just to show how smart the very obvious killer was which fooled almost nobody watching the movie. | 0neg
|
Blood Legacy starts with the arrival of lawyer Tom Drake (Norman Bartold) to the Dean estate formerly owned by the now deceased Christopher Dean (John Carradine), upon his arrival he is greeted by Mr. Dean's four children, Gregory (Jeff Morrow) & his wife Laura (Merry Anders), Victoria (Faith Domergue), Johnny (Richard Davalos) plus Leslie (Brooke Mills) & her fella Carl Isenberg (John Smith). Drake plays a tape recording of they're late Father's wishes after his death, the estate worth 136 million dollars is to be split equally between his four children, if any should die then the money would be split equally between the rest & if all were to die the freaky servants Elga (Ivy Bethune), Igor (Buck Kartalian) & the more mundanely named Frank (John Russell) would pocket the lot. Well, not satisfied with a quarter share of $136 million (which is still almost $35 million back in 1971 which doesn't sound too bad to me) someone decides they want it all for themselves & it's not long before decapitated heads are turning up in the fridge...<br /><br />Co-written, produced & directed by Roy Monson Blood Legacy disappointed me on two accounts. For starters this film's alternate & much more common title is Legacy of Blood which is also the title of an obscure horror film directed by Andy Milliagn back in '78 which I've always wanted to see, both films are regularly mixed up as both have similar stories & when I checked my on screen cable TV guide for Legacy of Blood I was excited because it said it was the Milligan film & even listed him as director so when I actually sat down to watch it & I heard John Carradine's voice & I then knew it wasn't the Milligan film that I had wanted to see, my heart sank. Then, of course, there's the simple yet undeniably straight forward fact that Blood Legacy is a total utter piece of crap that is literally painful to watch at times. The script by Monson & Eric Norden is slow, boring & extremely predictable. The character's are absolutely bizarre in an annoying way, the freak of a servant who ask's his sister (?) to cane him, the strange set of Brother's & Sisters who are just downright unlikeable & so far removed from reality that any tension or mystery that the simplistic whodunit story could have achieved is sorely missing & then there's the awful twist ending that you can guess within the first 10 minutes. It's boring to watch, it's poorly paced & it's just a chore to even think about it. Please, someone save me as this is really bad stuff. I could go on all day about how bad Blood Legacy is, I really could.<br /><br />Director Monson was either working with a none existent budget or judging by this he shouldn't have even been directing traffic. The entire film looks ugly, it's poorly photographed & there is no atmosphere or scares. The blood & gore is tame, there's an axe in a head, a decapitated head, a scene when someone is stung to death by wasp's & the best murder when someone's face is eaten by piranha. However there are question marks over this scene, so there's the victim, right. There's the tank of piranha, right. Victims head is placed in piranha tank, right. Pirahna eat victims face, right. Water remains crystal clear despite said victim having his face eaten, erm where's the blood?<br /><br />Technically Blood Legacy is terrible, it looks awful, the sound was obviously shot live & it's muffled & hard to hear which considering the terrible dialogue is maybe a blessing in disguise. The acting was not going to win anyone any awards that's for sure, the least said about it the better.<br /><br />Blood Legacy is an awful film, there really isn't a single positive aspect to it or if there is I can't think of it. Do yourself a favour & don't bother with this one, there are much better films out there. | 0neg
|
Terrible...just terrible. Probably the worst film I have ever seen. And I did see some pretty bad pictures, throughout the years. The sound sucks so does the quality of the picture, the direction, the acting...etc, etc. The only good shoots( meaning funny, because they're so bad ) are the special effects. Overall there are about 5 minutes worth of laughs. The rest of the flick gives you brain damage. | 0neg
|
I happen to have bought one of those "Legacy of Horror" 50 movie pack collections and would you believe I'm still looking through them to find a good HORROR movie in it. Sometimes you find an enjoyable yet campy one like The Devil's Messenger or The Devil Bat, or one of the great Alfred Hitchcock's films (some aren't horror however and are only on there because Hitchcock directed some horrors and suspense) but other times it seems that they put movies like The Island Monster and this on because they can't accept the fact they would easily be forgotten and should be for that matter.<br /><br />So we open up to sort of a Westing game idea. The rich yet cruel and abusive father played by Carradine (the one standing feature of this) has died and left his inheritance to his children and servants who he still hates. Carradine gives a good enough performance as always, but he's left mainly in a voice recording and flashback sequences leaving us to sit through the mediocre/terrible performances. The rest of the cast either overacts or underacts in scenes. Given this was an independent film of the 70's the lighting and effects are pretty limited. It's hard to build a lot of tension when the viewer can't see what's happening that well in some scenes. Some actors like the servants Igor and Elga give an effort at least and I'm ashamed to admit kind of left me chuckling at the end mainly for the sheer stupidity but still with some very minor happiness that they pulled some version of a twist to an otherwise pretty obvious who-done-it but not enough to enhance the quality of the film. You aren't meant to like the characters as they are either selfish and cruel or psychotic, but it takes it to a whole new level and makes many unwatchable. The death scenes are pretty bad and the suspense is not really there. It proves that you would probably enjoy the 20 movie pack "Chilling" containing films like House on a Haunted Hill, Little Shop of horror's with Jack Nicholson, and Night of the Living Dead over it. This is best avoided. | 0neg
|
A grade-Z horror filmmaker Carl Monson was one of the most prolific directors operating within the field of the low-budget gory mayhem.His movies are full of inept gore,laughable acting,boring sub-plots and woeful dialogue.A mysterious black clad figure is savagely murdering guests staying at the family mansion.Unfortunately this film is almost bloodless.You don't actually see the murders except with shadows and a few blood splatters.The pace is lethargic and the plot is rather uninteresting.The acting is merely competent,but the lack of gore and mutilation left me disappointed.A generous 4 out of 10.Just beware:do not mistake Monson's film with Andy Milligan's equally weak "Legacy of Blood". | 0neg
|
A family of terrible people must remain in a house for a week or else they will lose their inheritance which will go to the servants who will only get their inheritance if they agree to stay on and keep the house in order. People die (and so will you if you try to sit through this) If you've ever had any desire to see bad actors- many with ill fitting dentures-act or attempt to act in a bad horror movie this is your chance. This is just awful. Its so bad I thought Al Adamson, one of the worst directors ever, directed it, but I was wrong.<br /><br />Its so bad I don't want to say anything more about it, not because it isn't polite but because once I start I may not be able to stop.<br /><br />avoid | 0neg
|
You know a movie will not go well when John Carradine narrates (a.k.a. reads the script & plot synopsis) over his character's funeral procession, a mere 5 minutes into the movie. The narration is his character's last will & testament. It stipulates that his estate be divided amongst his 4 children and servants. The children shall split $136 million equally, but if any should die then that share is split amongst the remainders. If all the children should die then it is divided amongst the servants. To be eligible, they must live in the family estate for a week. It sounds like the typical plot of a reality show.<br /><br />There is little subtext as to the nature of the Deans. They are a powerful and severely dysfunctional family, but the real trouble starts with the drowning of that dog. From the opening voice-over by John Carradine you expect this movie will lead to a Machiavellian cat and mouse game with a twist ending. <br /><br />That journey is painfully slow and pointless. We trudge through minutes of watching people sitting around, playing pool, throwing darts, the misuse of the "through the fish bowl" shot, dramatic conversations between silk cravat wearing men, constant bickering, misplaced circus music, bizarre flashbacks reminiscent of faux-German expressionism, the horror aesthetic of the 4th grade and heaps of dramatic overacting. This all inevitably leads to the expected & ungratifying ending. You will be happy to still be alive, but the pain might be too great to bear alone. Share children, share.<br /><br />-Celluloid Rehab | 0neg
|
OK, how's this for original- this mean, rich old geezer leaves his estate to his adult children, all of them ungrateful losers, and two creepy servants, provided they spend the week in his spooky old house. What happens that night will surprise only those who haven't seen a movie or television show before. After a string of murders in which the victims look like they're bleeding restaurant ketchup, we have a painfully obvious twist ending. The cast is lead by some once respectable actors must have been desperate for their paychecks. There are also a few second-tier actors who were rising at the time but long forgotten now. As a result, the film generates all the drama and mystery of an episode of "Matlock." I will give credit where it's due- the closing scene is clever and amusing, if you're still awake. | 0neg
|
Back when I was a kid and I lived with my sister, she bought every horror movie she could find and this was one of them. VCR'S had just became a household item and we didn't have but about 150 movies and we watched the hell out of all of them.<br /><br />I was at a yard sale the other day and I saw this VHS copy of BLOOD LEGACY and I buy any horror movie I don't have and I knew this movie looked familiar. I thought for a second and realized it was one that my sister had bought. She had sold it years ago in a yard sale I am guessing - who knows.<br /><br />I didn't recall anything at all about it and I watched it the night I bought it and it refreshed my memory because of a few scenes. I am not sure how I felt about it as a kid but I am sure I enjoyed it because it was new to me and I'd watch and enjoy anything back then.<br /><br />I am a horror freak, but there are certain requirements in order for me to consider it "good" and this one fell very short. It was one of those talk talk talk and bore me to death types. What death scenes you see are done using the shadow on the wall followed by blood splatter and thats if you're lucky you get that much.<br /><br />The story is good and I have seen a few with similar plots, so I think this one should be buried and forgotten. Don't watch this people unless you're hard up. | 0neg
|
This is one of the most boring horror films I have ever seen, as it's absolutely god awful, John Carradine has very limited screen time. All the characters are boring, and the story is terrible, plus I could see the two twists at the end coming miles away!. The great setting and the creepy house definitely would have helped if it wasn't so damn boring, and there isn't one character to root for either, plus I hope it makes it's way to the bottom 100, because it deserves to be there in my opinion. When John Carradine finally shows up at the end, it's a pretty good scene but it's already way too late, and the only other screen time he had was in flashbacks, plus the only really gory scene in the movie is when a character gets his face messed up by Bee's, as it was rather gory. I got this in a DVD Horror set called Back From The Grave and everyone really overacts in my opinion, plus it's lucky this was included in a set I bought otherwise I would have chucked this out the window!. This is one of the most boring Horror films I have ever seen, as It's absolutely god awful, John Carradine has very limited screen time, and I say avoid it like the plague!, you don't want to go through the torture. The Direction is absolutely terrible!. Carl Monson does an absolutely terrible! job here, making every thing look cheap, wasting his potential on making creepy atmosphere and just keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is just as bad. John Carradine is good in his scene, but other then that he's hardly in the film other then flashback scenes. (Carradine Ruled!!). Merry Anders overacts here terribly as Laura, as she didn't convince me at all. Ivy Bethune is OK, and somewhat creepy, but also overacted, she did have a creepy smile at the end though. Rest of the cast, I didn't pay enough attention too, as I had a lot of trouble getting through it, but they were all really bad. Overall please avoid this,It's not worth the agony!. BOMB out of 5 | 0neg
|
The husband-and-wife team of Bennie Fields and Blossom Seeley were huge stars in vaudeville, yet they made very few films. As is the case for some other performers of their era (George M. Cohan, Fanny Brice, Gertrude Lawrence) the most accessible piece of film footage for Fields and Seeley is the biopic ABOUT them, in which they're portrayed by other actors: 'Somebody Loves Me', starring Betty Hutton and that inimitable song-and-dance man Ralph Meeker.<br /><br />In their heyday, Fields and Seeley were so hugely popular that another husband-and-wife vaudeville act -- Jesse Block and Eve Sully -- achieved nearly as much stardom performing an almost identical act, effectively becoming the "second-team" Fields and Seeley. Offstage, though, there was a major difference in the couples' living arrangements. Fields and Seeley lived in hotel suites, paying room-service rates for every meal they ate, and eventually running out of money. Block and Sully lived modestly and invested their earnings wisely, ending in comfortable retirement.<br /><br />The first 30 seconds of this Vitaphone short are occupied by two spats-wearing pianists. Apparently these two men had some slight name value of their own in 1930, although I've never heard of them. Finally, Fields and Seely rush in and start performing. They both have plenty of pep, and she's fairly attractive.<br /><br />I was annoyed that both performers keep making movements as if they're about to break into a dance, but they never quite do so until the third of the three songs they perform in this short. When they finally start hoofing, the results are not impressive.<br /><br />I was delighted to have this opportunity to see these two major performers doing their vaude act. Now that I've seen it, I understand why they never became stars in movie musicals. My rating for this one: just 4 out of 10, and I'll stick with Block and Sully. | 0neg
|
When great director/actor combinations are talked about the team of J. Lee Thompson and Charles Bronson is not usually mentioned. Probably because the output of nine joint ventures between the two of them runs the gamut from the really good action entertainment to the mediocre. Unfortunately Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects falls in the latter. <br /><br />That's sad because Kinjite could have been a whole lot better. But for the life of me I don't understand why it was necessary to make the father of the missing Japanese girl, a guy used to getting some cheap jollies because the romance in his marriage has run out. That might have been good for another film altogether, but it served no purpose here.<br /><br />A straightforward cop drama with Charles Bronson as a vice cop who's seen a bit too much in his line of work and has a strong prejudice against orientals. That part could also have used a little explaining as well. But he's going to have to overcome it if he and patient partner Perry Lopez are going to locate a captured Japanese school girl.<br /><br />Bronson's time in the vice squad have told him exactly where to look for the kidnapper. A stylish, murderous pimp played by Jaime Fernandez is the guy and he and Bronson have some history. In fact in the film's best scene, Bronson made him eat an expensive rolex watch and set his car on fire.<br /><br />At one point Fernandez happens to spot Bronson and Lopez in an all night delicatessen and this being after his rolex snack, he sprays the place with an Uzi killing everyone, but Bronson and Lopez. I really think that little incident would have had more than a couple vice cops from the LAPD after Fernandez. But that's another terribly big hole in the plot.<br /><br />Still there is a very rough justice in the end for Fernandez. I wish the whole film had been better though. This was the last film of the Bronson-Thompson team and J. Lee Thompson's last as a director. He should have gone out with something better. | 0neg
|
Charles Bronson stars as Lt Crowe a police detective who declares war on a pimp named Duke (Juan Fernandez) who kidnaps the daughter of a Japanese businessman who is the man who sexually harassed Crowe's daughter (Amy Hathaway) in this sleazy yet stylishly helmed revenge thriller. Kinjite may not be for everyone with it's somewhat disturbing plot threads but it is well made and indeed entertaining. | 0neg
|
Offering a killer combo of terrible writing, terrible acting and terrible direction, it's a tossup whether Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects is offensively bad or just hilariously bad. It's almost as if someone ran a competition to make the sleaziest, seediest Cannon film. As if a glance at a cast list including characters like 'Lesbian Pedophile,' 'Perverted Gentleman,' 'Porno Actress' weren't enough, it's your only chance to see Charles Bronson's cop throw a lowlife on a bed and grab a dildo - but don't worry, it's okay, as the offscreen screams make clear he's only torturing him for information. After all, even if he is a bit overprotective of his nice Catholic daughter, he's a nice Catholic cop who regularly brings local Catholic priest William O'Connell a packed lunch and who believes in poetic justice - or at least ensuring that the bad guys end up in the slammer with the horniest inmates maximum security can provide to give them a taste of their own medicine. But then that's what you get for telling him "Look, I think you're a little bit unstable." Still, when later offered a bribe, he may snarl "I'd like to shove this up your ass, but I don't want to get my hands dirty," he's clearly learned where to draw the line: instead, he just makes him eat a $25,000 watch and sets fire to his Cadillac. The anal obsession even follows through to the film's title: despite the poster featuring a naked Japanese girl on a porn film set, the film's only direct example of Kinjite/forbidden subjects, as Alex Hyde White's English teacher explains to a group of Japanese businessmen, is, er talking about your bowel movements in polite society.<br /><br />Bronson isn't just too old for this, as the opening fight makes only too clear, he's too old for love interest Peggy Lipton, and she looks old enough to have grown-up kids. A better actor than he ever got the credit for when given the right material, here's he's given less a properly thought out character than a series of outrageous reactionary quirks. When he's not widening the circles of suspects he's accidentally dropping them to their death off the sides of buildings. He's definitely not a P.C. copper, with a special loathing for the Japanese - as if it wasn't bad enough that they're buying up American businesses, what's worse, they double-park on a public thoroughfare! No racial minority goes unassaulted, be they black pimp or Pakistani hotel clerk, no cop cliché unrecycled, be it a boss who bangs his fist on the table or a dead meat partner (Perry Lopez and his spectacularly bad hair dye that's so prominent it deserves screen billing all its own). The twin plot strands - Bronson's L.A. cop trying to take down Juan Hernandez's pimp who deals in underage girls and James Pax's porn-obsessed Japanese businessman take forever to intertwine, and then in the most unlikely of ways: after copping a feel of Bronson's daughter on a bus ("Some Oriental guy touched my holy of holies!"), in the film's idea of poetic justice Pax finds his own daughter kidnapped by Hernandez. You half expect the writer to pop his head round the corner of the screen and say, "How d'ya like them apples?"<br /><br />Somewhere underneath all the laziness is the germ of a good idea even if it is too muddily developed to ever be clear quite what that idea really is, but the execution is pure Rising Sun: the Archie Bunker Version, shot like out-takes from an R-rated 80s music video with an outrageous and rather lazy dockside shoot-'em-up-and-blow'em-up finale that sees a small army of machine-gunning sidekicks suddenly appear to up the gratuitous body count. The last of Bronson's mostly bad to in different collaborations with J. Lee Thompson and sadly Thompson's last film as director - it's a poor signoff for two undervalued players who increasingly never seemed to be that discerning about what pictures they said yes to. | 0neg
|
The '80's were not very kind to one-time major star Charles Bronson. Starting with 1982's "Death Wish II" and ending with this truly gruesome film from '89, Bronson's screenwriters seemed to be trying to top each other in progressive grossness. "D.W. II" left little to the imagination in its depiction of the rape and suicide of Bronson's character's daughter, (a rape and murder of his housekeeper was also shown in disgusting detail). "10 to Midnight" was the sort of loathsome film that made you want to take a bath afterwards. Nothing redeeming about it. Other films like "The Evil that Men Do" and the remaining "Death Wish" films from this period straddled the line between high camp and high barf with their earnest depictions of brutality and revenge. I'm not sure if the producers (usually Pancho Kohner) got a kick out of showing a weary looking, senior citizen-aged Bronson destroying punks young enough to be his grandchildren or what, but the shoddy craftsmanship (and terrible scripts) of these films usually destroyed what little energy they may have generated.<br /><br />"Kinjite" -- the last of these films -- is fairly well-made but truly takes the cake in cinematic wretchedness. In this film Bronson: sodomizes a perverse john; forces a pimp to eat his Rolex watch; allows a male prisoner to get raped by another prisoner; makes incredibly xenophobic remarks among other things I've thankfully forgotten. Also depicted is the gang-rape of a young Japanese girl (fortunately, this was off-screen, though well-implied).<br /><br />What were people thinking when they made this film? What was Bronson thinking when he decided to ruin his career with these horrible films? For anyone interested in his best movies, check out most of the films he made in the '60's and '70's like "The Mechanic", "Death Wish", "From Noon til 3", "Once Upon a Time in the West", "Red Sun", "The Great Escape", "The Magnificent Seven", "Rider on the Rain", etc., etc.... | 0neg
|
Repugnant Bronson thriller. Unfortunately, it's technically good and I gave it 4/10, but it's so utterly vile that it would be inconceivable to call it "entertainment". Far more disturbing than a typical slasher film. | 0neg
|
Charles Bronson continued his 80's slump with what could possibly be his worst movie of the decade, if not ever. In it he plays a detective who goes to great lengths to track down a pimp who has abducted an Asian girl and is currently selling her to the highest bidder. It's a shameful attempt at action and is quite possibly the most depressing movie ever made. A lot of people consider the Death Wish sequels to be Bronson's worst movies. The Death Wish sequels weren't great movies but were in most cases competently made and very watchable. Kinjite however is an utterly dull thriller which is punctuated by mean spirited racism and child molestation. It really is a rephrensible film and all of it is made worse by the fact that it tries to preach a "Law and Justice" mentality that is too overwrought to really say anything. Indeed the movie begins with underage sex being interrupted with Bronson then anally raping the pedophile with a dildo. The Chicago theater I watched this in just gasped at the awkwardness of this scene, only to gasp at the awkwardness of the pimp raping the girl in this film. It has no point other than to exploit and really the movie wasn't well written enough to rise above the exploitation level and deliver something that would work. Bronson seems more into things but clearly this is far too repugnant to save. I want to point out that I think Charles Bronson is the coolest actor ever but this effort is ultimately his worst. The action sequences are poor also.<br /><br />1/2* out of 4-(Awful) | 0neg
|
This film is a good example of how through media manipulation you can sell a film that is no more than a very unfunny TV sitcom. In Puerto Rico the daily newspaper with the widest circulation has continuously written about the marvels of this film, almost silencing all others. Coincidentally the newspaper with the second largest circulation belongs to the same owners. The weekly CLARIDAD is the only newspaper on the island that has analyzed the film's form and content, and pointed out all its flaws, clichés, and bad writing.<br /><br />Just because a film makes a portion of the audience laugh with easy and obvious jokes, and because one can recognize actors and scenery, does not make it an acceptable film. | 0neg
|
Don't spend your money or your time on this pitiful piece of film in the guise of cinematography.When every third word is devoted to foul language and there is no real plot as well as having a cast of old actors who are still giving the same dated performances from the past and have not evolved in their careers, leaves a lot to be said. I was expecting something better from award winning actor Benicio del Toro. The vision that others may have of Puertorricans will be irreversibly distorted by such trash as Maldeamores. A foul word at a given moment in a film may be used to emphasize a given point of view and may even be funny or sad depending on its context (see the movie Elsa and Fred for example) but it should not permeate the plot. The movie is a total embarrassment and there was absolutely nothing funny or even cute about this film. | 0neg
|
"What happens when you give a homeless man $100,000?" As if by asking that question they are somehow morally absolved of what is eventually going to happen. The creators of "Reversal of Fortune" try to get their voyeuristic giggles while disguising their antics as some kind of responsible social experiment.<br /><br />They take Ted, a homeless man in Pasadena, and give him $100,000 to see if he will turn his life around. Then, with only the most cursory guidance and counseling, they let him go on his merry way.<br /><br />What are they trying to say? "Money can't buy you happiness?" "The homeless are homeless because they deserve to be?" Or how about, "Lift a man up - it's more fun to watch him fall from a greater altitude." They took a man with nothing to lose, gave him something to lose, and then watched him dump it all down the drain. That's supposed to be entertainment? They dress this sow up with some gloomy music and dramatic camera shots, but in the end it has all the moral high ground of car crash videos - only this time they engineered the car crashes and asked, "What happens when you take down a stop sign?" | 0neg
|
as always this is an inaccurate picture of the homeless. TV told a lot of lies about panhandlers in the early 1990s and made everyone look bad, and claimed we all made over $100 a day when $20-40 a day was much closer to reality. when someone drove by where i held up a sign offering to work, and offered me work, i actually went and took the work if i was physically able.and if i would been offered the $100,000 id damned sure invested in in apt prepaid for at least 2 years, and kept most in the bank and still left myself $10-20000 for NL $1-2 and $2-5 cash games at the casinos. i usually always win and could win decent if i just had a bankroll. instead i win about $1000 a month is all playing in always minimum buying in due to not wanting to risk losing it all. i was only homeless cause i didn't wanna risk spending all my money and going broke, sometimes i had over $1000-2000 in my sock while i slept outside. anyone wanting to talk contact sevencard2003 on yahoo messenger.i admit i was different than most homeless people though, due to the fact i never drank smoke or took drugs. im no longer homeless, am now in govt housing for $177 a month and getting SSI and spend most of my time winning at online poker. mom and sunflower diversified worked hard to get me SSI. glad my days of hiding in under the stage in the convention center of the casino at night sleeping, worrying about getting caught by security are finally over. had this TV crew picked me theyd been over a lot sooner. its a shame how they don't better select who they pick. | 0neg
|
What happens when you give a free man just enough money to trap him into the rat race and watch him squirm? Homeless people answer to no one. They have no mortgages, rent payments or idiot bosses. Homeless people don't have to worry about the IRS or performance reviews or credit card payments. But, give them just enough money to rent an apartment and buy a car and, suddenly, they have to worry about entering the rat race, buying gas for transportation, paying insurance on their car, and working for someone else. They get a chance to be a "productive citizens." This film was about as exploitive as a film can be. It's a way for the rich and middle-class sheeple to say "see what happens when you try to help the poor?" and it vindicates capitalistic arrogance.<br /><br />Why not a film that asks, "What happens when you take away everything a rich man has?" | 0neg
|
This film is "riveting" but in much the same way a car crash is riveting. It's hard to look away. Overall, this film is nothing more than an incredibly irresponsible social experiment--and a futile, biased experiment at that. The filmmakers are manipulative and seem to have no problems going for the lowest possible denominator. The manner in which the money is presented to Ted is pure exploitation. The intervening steps that the filmmakers force Ted to participate in (meeting with so-called experts) were empty and devoid of any substantive attempt to connect with Ted. Instead, it's painfully obvious that they serve to cover the filmmaker's posteriors and to further exploit Ted's situation. The worst part is that the filmmakers stop following Ted after 6 months; and seemingly are cut off entirely from the subject they had followed so closely months before. If they had cared, they would have found better "experts" to help Ted. If they truly wanted to see what Ted would do, then they should have let him spend the money without any intervention. This film is at best a high-brow Jackass stunt and not a documentary. It's sad to think how much $100,000 could have actually changed a homeless person's life had it been put in the right hands. | 0neg
|
I had read a few positive reviews of this film, and was truly surprised at how dreadful the whole thing was. Positioned as some cross between an AIDS-related story and some kind of "Ghost"/"Blithe Spirit" tale, this film can't always make it's mind up what it wants to be. <br /><br />Simon and Mark are a gay couple who have an "open" relationship - Simon is able to have anonymous (though safe) sex on the side when he wants. Mark is HIV+ and he and Simon don't seem to have a sex life anymore. When Mark dies, Simon - who has made a habit of shutting off his emotions after being rejected years ago by his father - tries to erase his memory and just get on with being a bachelor. Not that his behavior before Mark's death was much different. But Mark returns in ghostly form and foils his various trysts, while getting Simon to open up and admit his true feelings.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Simon is such a selfish SOB, it's impossible to feel any empathy toward him for most of the film. By the time he is supposed to be more sympathetic, it's too late to care. Mark, on the other hand, follows in Demi Moore's footsteps from "Ghost," by crying profusely throughout the movie. <br /><br />There is a bizarre switch in tone after Mark returns. Suddenly we get some lame attempts at humor, a la the TV show "Bewitched." But that doesn't last long. Once Simon's emotional health is at stake, the whole thing becomes increasingly mawkish, with amateurish attempts to jerk at your heartstrings. The finale, with a gold-plated muscle-boy angel guiding a tearful Mark to heaven while a chastened, grief-stricken Simon waves goodbye is just stupefying, chiefly because it isn't intentionally funny. | 0neg
|
The box for "To Die For" suckered me in -- a shirtless hunky guy and the promise of some laughs and sex. There was plenty of Thomas Arklie (Simon), who's easy on the eyes, but no laughs and little sexiness.<br /><br />The couple, Mark and Simon, have allegedly been together several years, but neither character is interesting enough to care about, so it's hard to imagine that they care about each other. The fault seems to lie in the script, not the performances; both actors do the best they can with what they're given. <br /><br />The ending is sappy and unaffecting (well, not totally unaffecting; I felt relief that it was over). <br /><br />If you're looking for a movie about gay relationships and AIDS that's funny, "Parting Glances" is far better. | 0neg
|
I have walked out of about 6 movies my entire life. This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't know how I sat through an hour of it. I must have been in a coma that night. I saw it in the theatre when it came out 8 years ago. I couldn't even remember the name, but I knew that Penelope Ann Miller starred in it. It must have really affected me to be wasting my time commenting on it today. Yech! Vomit! Barf! | 0neg
|
I had the greatest enthusiasm going in to the advance screening for this movie. After all, this is one of the oldest and most complex tales known to mankind, and it was one of the first epic tales I read as a kid (even before Tolkien). I must say that IT WAS A HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT. They completely made the plot into a joke and turned the thing into one long soap opera. The elements that WERE faithful to the plot were sprinkled throughout in such a haphazard manner that the audience was laughing at many times at the silly script that just paid lip service to this battle of all battles. It was a huge disappointment to see a complex character like Achilles (who has a strange combination of nearly Matrix-like powers, utter ruthlessness and male lovers in the original poem) turn to "Fabio on the beach" in the guise of Pitt (who with a good script and more effort could have turned this into the most complex and original warrior figure Hollywood has ever produced). The actors were actually decent, trying to make the best of a ridiculous script. It was actually a waste of so much talent (Peter O'Toole stole the show, and Orlando Bloom and Sean Bean were pathetic). Compare it to LOTR or Gladiator and it doesn't even hold a candle to them. Plenty of hunks for the ladies to goggle over but not enough battle scenes for a movie that is about one long battle and siege. I wouldn't recommend that anyone pay to see this story dragged through the dirt like one of the characters was (at least they got that part right). | 0neg
|
I had high hopes for Troy and I am so bitterly disappointed. The film was directed so badly it made my stomach ache. The pacing was so slow, the dialogue laughable and the film - well apart from a nice fight scene between Achilles (Pitt) and Hector (Bana) - the rest was shallow.<br /><br />And why, oh why does Hollywood always insist on rewriting stories to fit 'consumer approval'. Agamemnon didn't die in Troy, the war lasted 10 years and Achilles was killed by Paris OUTSIDE the walls of Troy with an arrow to the ankle! It annoys me that such a classic story as this is turned into a soap.<br /><br />And don't even start me on the 'lack' of chemistry between Helen and Paris. She was the woman the war was fought over and it didn't even look as if the two of them cared a great deal about the other. No sparks, no emotion, no hope.<br /><br />I have to say in the films defence Brad Pitt, Eric Bana and Peter O' Toole acted very well with a bad script but that isn't enough to save this awful movie. <br /><br />Can anybody tell me where the £200 million budget went? Maybe in all the trees they used for the funeral pyres - where did they get all those trees?<br /><br />I am so disappointed it hurts. | 0neg
|
Hello there,<br /><br />This is my first post in IMDb even though I use it as a reference for quite a while. I would therefore like to salute you all. The fact that I am a Greek is inevitably going to affect my judgement I hope not to your annoyance.<br /><br />I spent 2 years of my life, (all we Greeks did actually), analysing Omirus epos (and not Homers as you see everywhere), rhyme by rhyme. If I recall well it was Iliada (Iliad) on 8th grade and Odysseia (Odyssey) on 9th grade. Warner's Troy, was a big disappointment to me and my fellow Greeks around the campus (I study in the UK).<br /><br />Iliad epos is one of the very best literature works ever made. It was composed by a Greek poet Omirus a whole 400 years after the actual war. Historians put Trojan war around 1200 BC, and the actual reason of the war not being Helen's beauty but the strategically crucial position of Troy. That said one may now understand that Omirus epos is not presenting the actual events (as it's not accurate historically) but this was never the purpose of this work. <br /><br />Reading this huge poem, one can find himself wondering for the very definitions of honour, love, anger, hate, heroism, discipline, loyalty and so on. The best part and the most educational as well were these prolonged talks between the warriors before the battle. None of these though were revealed in 'Troy'<br /><br />Warner's Troy was really cheap to my eyes, and to other intellectual people English Finnish and German colleagues of me as well. It is a shame to spend millions of dollars in such a bad scenario. By the way perfect storm was a bad and stupid blockbuster (computers graphics did the whole work), and yet it is Wolfgang Petersen's best work. <br /><br />I conclude saying that you'd better watch something else instead. I would give Troy 2 out of 10. It is a really expensive B movie.<br /><br />Cheers <br /><br />Alex | 0neg
|
Went to see the movie "Troy" this afternoon. Here's what I learned:<br /><br />Contrary to popular opinion and history in general, Greek men were not gay. EVER. This was clearly established immediately at the start of the film and reinforced every five minutes or so thereafter. So it is safe for American dudes to see this movie.<br /><br />Helen of Troy always had impeccable hair and makeup. She looked gorgeous in all of her brief cameo scenes which, though numerous, were probably all filmed on the same day, one after the other, with the director saying, "Alright, now look beautiful . . . good ... OK, now look frightened ... good... now look depressed ... good ... now look interested . . . good ... now look beautiful again ... good..."<br /><br />Most Greek and Trojan men had British accents. Those with American accents couldn't act.<br /><br />Trojans looked just like Greeks, but they tended to stay on the right side of the screen.<br /><br />Brad Pitt does not blink on camera.<br /><br />Helen of Troy's biggest line was, "They're coming for me."<br /><br />Trojan music sounded remarkably like modern Bulgarian music.<br /><br />Brad Pitt's thighs go all the way up.<br /><br />Achilles had a young male friend with whom he was very close, but it's OK. They were cousins. Never mind what history says.<br /><br />Peter O'Toole can tell an entire story with just an expression.<br /><br />Trojan gods apparently all had Greek names, but their statues either looked Egyptian or like Peter O'Toole in drag.<br /><br />Greek men never touched each other unless they were fighting, much like American men.<br /><br />All of the thousands of extras in the movie had exactly the same skin color... Light Egyptian, by Max Factor.<br /><br />Troy had only three women.<br /><br />There were lots of blond Greeks, which is good news for Brad Pitt, who would otherwise have really stuck out.<br /><br />Despite their coastal desert locale, Greeks had the uncanny ability to find unlimited amounts of timber to build fires, funeral pyres, Trojan horses and the like.<br /><br />British actors look silly with Greek hairdos.<br /><br />Brad Pitt changes expression only when the sun is shining directly in his eyes.<br /><br />Greek soldiers fought constantly, but their outfits always looked impeccable.<br /><br />Greek soldiers wore underwear under their skirts.<br /><br />Apparently Greek temples were always in ruins, even back when they were all new. | 0neg
|
I like Brad Pitt enormously. He is an actor with brains and wit, not to mention face, pectorals and all the rest. Since I saw him in "Thelma and Louise" a thought has been bothering me, who does he remind me of? "Troy" did it for me. He is the new Brigitte Bardot. The differences are obvious of course. Male, American etc but Brigitte Bardot comes to mind nonetheless. He is so beautiful that he is at his most effective when he plays against it. "Kalifornia" "12 Monkeys" "Fight Club" "Snatch" His self deprecating humor makes him human, almost accessible. Fortunately "Troy" will soon be forgotten. Only still photographs with Pitt, semi naked in ravishing sprint positions will decorate the walls of legions of salivating fans. Strange, "Das Boot" is one of the great films of the second part of the 20th Century. What is Wolfgang Petersen doing directing this? Well, I suppose it would be very hard to say no at the chance of working with the new Brigitte Bardot. | 0neg
|
To confess having fantasies about Brad Pitt is a pretty tough admission for an heterosexual to make. But what can I tell you? Maybe is that famous extra something that everybody talks about and makes a star a star. It crosses that barrier. It pulls you into unknown sensual and emotional territory. Brando had it in spades, Montgomery Clift, Gary Cooper, James Dean of course and in more recent times, Tom Cruise, Jude Law, Johnny Depp, Ewan McGregor and Billy Crudup. Women fell in love with Garbo, Dietrich, Katharine and Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, Marilyn Monroe, Julie Christie, Charlotte Rampling, Meryl Streep, Vanessa Redgrave, Julia Roberts and very very recently Natalie Portman. But Brad Pitt has, singlehandedly, redefined the concept. He is the only reason to go out, get in the car, find parking, buy a ticket, popcorn and get into a theatre to see "Troy" If you liked epics in the "Jupiter's Darling" style you may enjoy this. But if you don't, go all the same, we want to keep Brad Pitt in business. | 0neg
|
Well, were to start? This is by far one of the worst films I've ever paid good money to see. I won't comment on the story itself, it's a wonderful classic, but here it feels like a soap opera. To start with, the acting, except for Eric Bana, is soap opera quality. I've always been a fan of Brad Pitt, but here every actor on The Bold and the Beautiful puts him to shame. The camera action doesn't help, either. How it lingers on him when he's thinking, it just takes me back to Brooke Forrester's days in the lab! Peter O'Toole has either had a really bad plastic surgery, or he is desperately in need of one. Either way, he looks more like Linda Evans than Linda Evans! And to end my comments, Diane Kruger is a cute girl, but she sure is no Helen of Troy. Peterson should rather have chosen Saffron Burrows for the role, since Elizabeth Taylor would be rather miscast by now. | 0neg
|
I know nothing of the Iliad so can not comment on it's accuracy to that story. However, as a stand alone film I found this very boring. The battle scenes tried to be large and spectacular but they were just obvious CGI.<br /><br />The acting is poor and no doubt Brad Pitt was cast just to attract the ladies. But he does not make a good warrior, too pretty i am afraid.<br /><br />Good points are is the design. This film does look good with the landscape and castle buildings/walls impressive. I do like a film that at least tries to get the characters accents true but this film just seems to ignore it completely. we hear American, Scottish English anything but what you might expect for a film about an ancient eastern civilisation.<br /><br />All in all, I do not recommend this film for a family sit down. It is too long and the young will get bored.<br /><br />For adults, it is OK if you don't care about the lack realism. | 0neg
|
As was to be expected, A Mazursky film made in the 70s would be counter-culture, sympathetic towards the hippies - and have a lot of hippies in it - and, naturally, it is childishly anti-authoritarian (e.g. the scene on the Mexican border, when Sutherland provokes a custom's officer by showing little respect and then accuses the latter of making him open his luggage only because he (Sutherland) has long hair). The constant left-wing dribble could have gotten on my nerves had I not been prepared for it beforehand; Sutherland muses aloud to his family and friends about potential movie ideas for his next film, and most of these ideas are either about blacks or Indians (needless to say, he would be welcomed with open arms in today's Hollywood). One of his movie ideas is about a black uprising in Beverly Hills - a race-war, so-to-speak, in the middle of L.A.. This is the kind of nonsense that Mazursky thinks about when writing scripts for his movies. Fortunately, some of Sutherland's hippie friends make fun of this black-revolution premise, and the resulting dialogue isn't bad; a little later, the Jewish guy makes a crack about Sutherland making a movie about "masturbation and the black problem", when the latter starts talking about masturbation. Another funny moment is when Sutherland's older daughter performs some PC crap on stage with her white school-mates, and they all say: "We, the black people of the Republic of South Africa...".<br /><br />There is always a certain amount of self-indulgence when Hollywood makes a movie about Hollywood - especially when it's Hollywood making a movie about Hollywood discussing Hollywood doing movies. Now, that's very, very self-indulgent, indeed. The scene with Fellini (playing himself) is more amusing than annoying, though. Mazursky throws in the standard flower-children and anti-Vietnam bullshit into the soup, and also pokes fun at corporate Hollywood, but he was/is just as much a part of the "phony Hollywood" (lyrics from that song in the surreal war segment) as anyone else; I am pretty sure that he, too, makes phony small-talk in Beverly Hills parties and grins fakely while shaking the hands of people whom he either doesn't know or like, but whose money he wants badly for his next (left-wing) project. As for his hair: he has the worst hair I've seen in a very long time (on film or elsewhere); it's sort of like the kind of long hair that a middle-aged accountant would have if he grew it long. The film remains relatively interesting in spite of its aimlessness, but it bogs down somewhat into tedium in the last third. If you'd like to read my parody/biography of Donald Sutherland (and other Hollywood actors), contact me by e-mail. | 0neg
|
Does anything at all happen in this movie. There are only the bizarre short scenes where I didn't know what the hell was going on so that doesn't count. This movie is sooo boring it hurts, and this is coming from a person who likes it when movies are about making movies. Confused?, well I was after watching this crap. What was Donald Sutherland on, because he missed it with this one completely. And what's with the "pedofile" scene at the beginning of the movie. Can put anyone to sleep! 4/10 | 0neg
|
This series is one of the worst shows I have ever seen. Terrible acting, terrible effects, terrible writing, you get my drift. The stories are so far from the legend of Robin Hood it's amazing. Looks like they just wanted to use the name Robin Hood to attract an audience. It might as well have been called New Adventures of Mr. Bland Acting.<br /><br />Someone commented before me that if you had imagination, you'd love this show. That is a horrible approach to a TV-series. A visual media like this should spark your imagination, you shouldn't have to force your imagination into something to make it good. That would be like the Simpsons episode where they try to brainwash Homer with a religious propaganda movie, and he starts talking about who killed who or whatever. "If a movie is boring, I just make up my own story."<br /><br />In conclusion: Absolute human waste. | 0neg
|
i wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry. Porretta was good looking but resembled like a Mexican porn star not an English outlaw. costumes? what costumes? a t-shirt with strips of black leather on it. it was Marion's clothes--or lack of them--that really got me. do the 'fans' of this stinker really believe women dressed like that in medieval england. the Mongols and vikings were inaccurate and stupid, but the episode with an ALIEN was worst of all. Especially as his make up mainly consisted of oatmeal on his face--an old trick.The hedgehog monster was pretty funny, as was climbing up the side of a castle on a ladder of arrows--as if. the US accents grated as did the initial drawling voice over' RAW-bin Hood and LIDDLE John'.the second robin and Marion were really quite minging in looks and what was left of the show went totally down the pan... | 0neg
|
I expected this to be a lot better. I love Tim Burton's work, so I was really excited to see these online short films. Well, they weren't at all what I had expected.<br /><br />I don't really know what exactly it is I don't like. I guess they're just sort of dull. The sound bothers me, and most of the characters, although I loved Roy the Toxic Boy, and Stainboy.<br /><br />The Match Girl episode probably bugged me the most, although it was pretty funny.<br /><br />I also don't like the way some of the characters die. Like how Match Girl basically set the gas station on fire, or how the Girl Who Stares died, in general. Roy's death was amusing, surprisingly. Death by a car freshener. Very original ;-) That made me laugh so hard...<br /><br />There are some things that aren't appropriate for kids. Just some language and gore. That's about all I have to say! 3/10 | 0neg
|
The story of the film was as simple minded as its morality: Go find a girl, marry her, live with her happily ever after. Though the film had some fine moments and turns, most of it stayed at the surface of what might have been shown in a film with the same storyline.<br /><br />The Baptist/Mormon struggle was only touched superficially and was mocked about, probably intentionally. A more interesting story would have been a mixed couple.<br /><br />If you wanna see a film which doesn't need too much concentration, which can be watched by the whole family and which teaches your children modest and conservative values (besides the modern tolerance stuff ;-) ), you will be fine with this film. Might be shown at a family-home-evening... | 0neg
|
Movie about a small town with equal numbers of Mormons and Baptists. New family moves in, cue the overwritten dialog, mediocre acting, green jello salad with shredded carrots, and every other 'inside Mormon joke' known to man. Anyone outside the Mormon culture will have a hard time stomaching this movie. Anyone inside the Mormon culture will be slightly amused with a chuckle here and there. You'll be much better off watching Hess's other movies (Napoleon Dynamite, etc..) than trying to sit through this one. The acting is mediocre. Jared Hess has had his hands on much more quality films like "Saints and Soldiers", and "Napoleon Dynamite". I would recommend both movies over this groaner. | 0neg
|
This movie was awful. I had a very difficult time watching this all the way through. I didn't get the point of the movie. What was the point of this movie? The soundtrack was bad, acting was bad and the story uninspiring. The two main characters in the movie were very boring and their dialog was uninteresting. There was no chemistry among any of the cast members. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that most of the actors were first timers. The movie could have easily been cut down to about an hour and half without losing the plot. That indicates how many useless scenes there were in the movie. I would have rather ha a root canal during the two hours of the movie. I want those two hours back! If you want to watch good, funny movie that is family friendly and made by a bunch of mormons, watch Napoleon Dynamite instead. | 0neg
|
The late 80's saw an inexplicable rash of supernatural horror films set in gloomy penitentiary settings. Renny Harlin's superbly gritty and moody "Prison" got the whole haunted hoosegow ball rolling; it was immediately followed by the markedly inferior "The Chair," John Saxon's enjoyably trashy "Death House," the passable psycho picture "Destroyer," and this hideously limp'n'lethargic exercise in hopelessly comatose tedium. <br /><br />Your usual annoying collection of horribly unsympathetic college student chowderheads lead by insufferably spineless tormented twerp Alex (the hugely unappealing Nicholas Celozzi) go to Alcatraz Island to investigate the bizarre circumstances surrounding the sudden gruesome death of up-and-coming rock star Sammy Mitchell (blandly played by Toni Basil of "Hey Micky" fame). Alex's brother becomes possessed by the evil demonic spirit of a vicious cannibalistic US Civil War cavalry commandant and goes on the expected killing spree, thus forcing wimpy Alex to overcome his passivity and make a stand against this ghoulish specter.<br /><br />Although slickly photographed by Nicholas Von Sternberg, with a few decent gore set pieces and a fair amount of spooky atmosphere (the film was shot on location in the dismal, rusty, rundown ruins of Alcatraz Island), "Slaughterhouse rock" nonetheless just doesn't cut it as a solid, effective fright feature. This is largely due to the uniformly obnoxious and unlikeable collegiate smartaleck characters, a tiresomely smirky bunch whose inane comic antics prove to be grating rather than amusing. The flat acting from a noticeably disinterested cast hurts matters all the more, with onetime "Playboy" playmate and undeniable blonde cutie pie hottie supreme Hope Marie Carlton doing an especially irritating Linnea Quigley impersonation as the token oversexed nympho bimbo. Dimitri Logothetis' direction displays a modicum of flashy visual style, but the tone is unevenly pitched between grim seriousness and goofy, horrendously sophomoric silliness, and, most damagingly, Ted Landon's sloppy, inconsistent, overly complicated and finally quite confusing script miserably fails to develop the necessary internal logic to make the far-fetched story even remotely plausible. In other words, this stinker sadly succeeds in making a scant 90 minutes seem like an excruciatingly drawn-out cinematic jail sentence. | 0neg
|
The summary provided by my cable TV guide made it sound a lot more interesting than it actually is. "Slaughterhouse Rock" is by far the worst horror film that I have ever seen, a title previously held by "Urban Legends: Final Cut". From its opening scene I could tell it's going to be really bad, but I was so bored that I couldn't care less. This film contains laughable acting, especially by the guy who's tormented in his dreams, incredible as in not credible plot twists, and some of the crappiest music I've heard, and I'm living in a period when the likes of Britney Spears and Nsync dominate the air waves. The biggest problem with "Slaughterhouse Rock" is that it's not funny. One would a film as dull and boring and so NOT scary as this would try to spice things up a bit with a few funny one-liners here and there, but no. We have Tormented Guy's self-centered friend trying to be funny, but came across as annoying instead. (spoiler) And please, do tell me, who in this crazy world is insane and self-loathing enough to visit a creepy jail in the middle of the night? No one! If you're going to make a horror movie, at least make it believable. This one is anything but. | 0neg
|
The storyline is absurd and lame,also sucking are performances and the dialogue, is hard to keep your Eyes open. I advise you to have a caffeine-propelled friend handy to wake you in time for a couple Gore-effects.Why they bring Alcatraz in?In this case,becomes increasingly difficult to swallow. All the while ,i wondered who this film aimed for?Chock full of lame subplots (such as the Cannibalism US Army-captain)This is low-grade in every aspect.BTW this Movie is banned in Germany!! | 0neg
|
Well after three times through I still have no idea what this movie is about because, quite honestly, it failed to generate any real interest or concern. But here it goes: A bunch of too old to be teen Teen Actors dressed in horrifying latter 1980's fashions (did WE look like that too??) decide it would be a really good idea to get in a motorboat and go visit the abandoned Alcatraz after one of them has nightmares of people being slaughtered in various horrifying ways that manage to rip off POLTERGEIST, THE EVIL DEAD, and Freddy Kreuger in one fell swoop. The dimwit even envisions himself being roasted over an open fire with some deformed freak slicing off strips of tenderloin. Good thing it was only a dream or it might have hurt, and good thing his dreams had a decent special effects budget. Mine are usually pretty lame: Girls, model space ships, blowing things up with a bazooka, etc.<br /><br />Once on the Alcatraz island they find themselves in a Slasher movie, and meet up with Tony Basil, who cannot help but break into a couple dance poses at times and had her own lighting crew (complete with a smoke machine for that 1980's smoky haze infused light look, which I kind of miss). And such reminded me that Ms. Basil helped choreograph David Byrne of the Talking Heads for some of his videos and performances. This of course has nothing at all to do with the film but kept popping into mind as the movie posed very little to actually think about. It sort of happens, and you can either watch or keep working on your page markup with it on the TV set off to the side. But since the film isn't really interesting, you'll keep deciding to finish one last thing instead of wasting time, the movie will keep ending, and you'll find yourself wondering what you missed every time you realize the end credits are starting to roll again, dammit ...<br /><br />*SOME* 1980's Teen Horror movies can survive such specialized viewing: Umberto Lenzi's GHOSTHOUSE, CHOPPING MALL & it's Killbots, the hard to ignore NIGHT OF THE CREEPS and the over-the-top SLEEPAWAY CAMP all come to mind. They are films that, like them or not, demand your attention and usually pay off with some good gore or T&A, and typos in your work as evidence that you were watching the TV instead of your keyboard. I am sure that HELL ISLAND (as the British version I glommed onto is titled) does indeed have some good stuff in there, but frankly I don't care. And nothing is more annoying that encountering art of any genre that doesn't inspire admiration, some decent dislike or even good old honest hatred for it. The film is content with simpering away 80-whatever minutes of time and never really accomplishing anything more than being a sometimes distraction in spite of my best efforts to try and give it a chance, but no dice.<br /><br />There is some offbeat production design going on, the use of lighting is striking at times, and the occasional outburst of mayhem will probably keep fans of 1980's Teen Horror interested. The rest of you be warned though: YOU WILL WONDER IF YOU DRESSED LIKE THAT IN 1987, and the answer is probably more hideous than anything which happens on screen. Try to watch it as a free rental if possible so that if disappointed you aren't stuck with the damn thing: Movies like this take up valuable shelf space that is often at a commodity these days, what with the world coming to an end & all ... | 0neg
|
College student Alex Gardner (Nicholas Celozzi) is plagued by nightmares of a cellar-dwelling ghoul at Alcatraz. He dreams of cutting off his own hand, spitting up a worm, a ghoul ripping open his chest and being roasted over an open fire. After his friends see him levitating "6 feet" over his bed, a helpful, occult-obsessed teacher (Donna Denton) suggests that they sneak into Alcatraz to face his fears. Of course they go in the middle of the night when no one is around to help when things get out of hand!<br /><br />The group become stranded, Alex's brother Richard (Tom Reilly) becomes possessed and starts killing everyone. Toni Basil of "Mickey" fame shows up as the helpful ghost of Sammy Mitchell, lead singer of the group "Bodybag". She teaches Alex how to levitate out of his body and does a rock music dance intercut with repeat nightmare footage to pad out the running time. All of the victims show up as wisecracking ghosts a la the Griffin Dunne character in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON. The script is full of plot holes, cheesy dialogue and lame attempts at comedy. Good FX work and cool opening credits (both by Ernest D. Farino) are the only things gaining any merit. Basil and Devo ("Whip It") do some songs on the soundtrack.<br /><br />Score: 2 out of 10 | 0neg
|
This was one of the most boring "horror" movies that I have ever seen. A college kid has an epidemic of nightmares involving roaming spirits at Alcatraz. Trying to deliver a mix of "Nightmare on Elm Street" and standard vampire fare in the form of a bad 80s music video, this movie is jammed full of bad acting and an exhaustively slow moving story. Although, being such a bad, and often laughable movie (dig those mullets and the terrible dialog), it would be good material to spoof on for an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. Don't be fooled by the proud mention of the film being the 1987 winner of the Silver Scroll Award by the Academy of Sicence Fiction, Fanatasy, and Horror, or that Devo contributes to the soundtrack, or that Tony Basil has a part in the film. It is a giant disaster, though one with a small cult following (see the other IMDb comments for this film). | 0neg
|
Hearing such praise about this play, I decided to watch it when I stumbled across it on cable. I don't see how this "elivates" women and their "struggles" by focusing on the topic at hand. I guess if you have an interest in stories about women's private parts and how it affects their lives, then this is for you. Otherwise, it's rather dull and boring. If anything, I found it a bit degrading.<br /><br />I inquired with a female friend who also watched this and she thought it was horrible as well. So, it's not just a guy "not getting it". | 0neg
|
I saw one of the stage performances in Denver and have never been less impressed. The word "vagina" says it all. A body part. Nothing shocking here. I could say to my doctor, "My left arm has been hurting a bit after tennis" or "My vagina hurts after cycling" with equal or more social commentary. It could be the "Tricep Monologues" for all the entertainment or radical comment I heard. The monologues were dull but delivered with drama, the topics were outdated, and I was alternately bored and annoyed. Once I think I laughed but apparently it wasn't when I was supposed to. Surely this isn't really a hit. Oh, and spoilers: there was a LESBIAN! - oh, wait, maybe not, come to think of it. And Inappropriate Fondling! And a Crack Mama! That about covers it. | 0neg
|
Although this seems to be quite an old show (2002), I watched my first ever episode last night and I have to say it has to be the worst show . . . ever.<br /><br />I am not one for placing comments but I was so shocked that a show could exist that blatantly tries to pander to, and I am only assuming that this was their target audience, children under 12 years old or people with a less than average IQ.<br /><br />The episode I was subjected to last night contained so many disjointed story lines, tried to include EVERY possible plot summary imaginable and all the while trying to preach about friendship, family, religion and politics !!!.<br /><br />Basic story that they covered in the episode: Frat House hazing gone wrong wrong with too much alcohol - Death Turns out to be Senators son who wants FBI to investigate. Death is actually murder by peanut allergy Senator thinks it could be his sworn enemy and childhood best friend who did this because Senator was taking money for his votes for legislation but eventually got a conscience and said 'no' to mean mulit millionaire. Everybody a suspect but all have the usual alibi (ex-girlfriend student shagging a married teacher so had to lie, disgruntled student who was reported by victim actually had life changing experience, Senators enemy did not pay desperate student to kill sworn enemies son, he gives money freely to lots of broke students). All the while the heroine of this dribble has her niece staying who is 'at that age' and has a crush on a boy, who she eventually gets the courage to talk to with the assistance of her aunty, but only to dump him because the 'in' girls says he is not good enough and so to keep in with them she dumps him. Don't worry, she gets back with boy after she learns the truth about life and the 'in' girls drop her, Aunty also explains that God is the only one who truly she can rely on (I was almost sick at this point).<br /><br />This 'drama' gets even better when Sue and her FBI team find out who the killer is . . . your gonna laugh at this, i sure did . . . <br /><br />It is one of the Frat boys who only a year ago found out he was adopted and that his real dad is an International terrorist and he is trying to impressive real daddy by killing boy and planting bomb at funeral . . . . . . . <br /><br />The characters are cardboard the acting is cardboard the continuity is cardboard the story is cardboard Anybody who says that they love this show has cardboard for a brain<br /><br />Why the writers of this show have tried to pack in EVERY eventuality into the one show means that they obviously have no faith in the character development or actors capability to carry off a simple plot line. Watching this show is like watching 'Last Action Hero' with Arnie killing 5'000 people with a tooth pick, except Arnie is a better actor (wow, never thought there would be a day that i would say that !!)<br /><br />In the words of the Simpsons beloved character 'comic book guy' . . . . <br /><br />WORST TV SHOW . . . . . EVER. | 0neg
|
When watching this show you are not quite sure whether it is the story or the acting that is more annoying. First of all, the storyline of each episode is very predictable, the writers must have used every cliché possible, you can guess not only the general plot, but the arrangement of the scenes and also the lines of each character, making the show some sort of a collage of every police series out there. On the top of it all comes the "message" of the show, that the good are good and the bad are bad and that at the end of the day the good shall prevail and that we should all love each other, be better man and better citizens, all done in the most ostensible manner. The actors, as the vehicles of this message and nothing more than that, will use a limited set of acting skills: the "I am a good carrying person" smile, the concerned look and the "victory is ours" body posture, while the bad guys have the "I'm a bad one" frowning and the "you caught me" look, followed by the "I'm good for nothing and I should be removed from society" head banding (this kind of also sums up the general development of each show). True story or not, the show is garbage, yet another proof that producers don't give a s**t about viewers, that we are all thought to be idiots. Well this series makes every possible attempt to idiotize the living brains out of you. | 0neg
|
I found "The Arab Conspiracy" in a bargain bin and thought I'd uncovered a lost treasure. Folks, there's a reason why you don't hear much about this film. The plot is muddy, the pacing is slow, Cornelia Sharpe is about as vivacious as plain, cold tofu, and the ending leaves you flat. Not even Sean Connery can save this one. | 0neg
|
The movie had a lot of potential, unfortunately, it came apart because of a weak/implausible story line, miscasting, and general lack of content/substance. One of the very obvious flaws was that Sean Connery, who played an Arab man, didn't know how to pronounce his own Arab name! This may seem a small flaw but it points to the seeming lack of effort in paying attention to details. The quality of acting was uniformly well below average. <br /><br />Movie's solitary saving grace was the twist in the plot at the very end; and a french song (I don't recall the title). Overall, it was a pretty bad movie where Sean Connery was visibly miscast. | 0neg
|
This is a case of a bunch of people thinking they are so clever they have a story that fits the time. Remember the all-around political conspiracies caught on camera in the years leading to the Watergate and a little later? Most movies trying to cash in on made-for-TV 'o so powerful, o so mind numbing' conspiracies were in fact caught in their own navel-gazing attitude.<br /><br />I was never a fan of The Conversation which I find as much dated as others conspiracy stints of the time but Coppola was true to his main character and Hackman was a pretty engaging actor to observe. I mean these conspiracy movies are mostly drowning in the character pool of noir heroes. Lots of questions unanswered, lots of dis-communication... Well this takes at least Bergman to build a movie about such un-visual bases.<br /><br />The Next Man is a perfect example of its time: one political soup served with an idealistic character and an horrendous conspiracy tightening its web around him. Neither part is interesting in itself and the whole doesn't get any better. In fact you can tell how much it will be bad from the very first sequences piling up 'watcha that' murders without ever advancing any storyline. Pedestrian directing at its worst as most of the movie is one pompous accumulation of scenes revolving around violence naively brought under the viewer's eyes. | 0neg
|
I'm usually not one to say that a film is not worth watching, but this is certainly an extenuating circumstance. The only true upside to this film is Cornelia Sharpe, looking rather attractive, and the fact that this film is REALLY short.<br /><br />The plot in the film is unbelievably boring and goes virtually nowhere throughout the film. None of the characters are even remotely interesting and there is no reason to care about anyone. I'm not sure why on earth Sean Connery agreed to do this film, but he should have definitely passed on this one.<br /><br />The only reason I could see for seeing this film is if you are a die-hard Sean Connery fan and simply want to see everything he's done. Save this one for last though.<br /><br />Well, if you by some miracle end up seeing this despite my review (or any of the other reviews on this site), then I hope you enjoy it more than I did. Thanks for reading. | 0neg
|
PLAN B has the appearance of a quickly made, unedited, sloppy script for a movie with the attempt for an outing for the actors involved - an outing that should have been nixed from the start. It is just another Mafia-based 'comedy' that has nothing new and lowers the standard for those participating.<br /><br />Joe Maloni (Paul Sorvino) is the crime boss more concerned about clothing and appearances than about his business of control. His personal assistant Mario (Anthony DeSando) is dumber than dirt and his ignorance is supposed to be funny. Maloni has whacked one of his debtors (who just happens to be married to bookish Fran - Diane Keaton) and Maloni takes Fran on as his assistant to work off her dead husband's debt by being Maloni's 'hit man'. Fran is afraid of her own shadow and is unable to carry out Maloni's assignments, electing instead to transport her 'whackees' to Florida to hide at her brother James' house until she can figure out what to do next. This alternative to killing the three candidates is called Plan B, Plan A being to kill them! The ending is wholly predictable just as is every line assigned in the script to the characters.<br /><br />Diane Keaton has made a lot of fine films and is one of our most talented actresses and comediennes, but here she screams and rants and twitches her way through a ridiculous part that quickly becomes annoying to watch. Paul Sorvino is, well, the Paul Sorvino type cast from other mobster films. The supporting cast is likewise allowed to play to the balcony in the broadest slapstick, pratfall fashion imaginable. What is supposed to be a comedy ends up being just silly and overdone. Director Greg Yaitanes needs to go back to TV sitcoms: had this flimsy story been compressed into a half-hour gig it might have had a chance. Grady Harp | 0neg
|
Simply put, this is the worst movie since "Police Academy: Mission to Moscow" (if you liked that movie you will probably like this one).<br /><br />What were they thinking ? Some ideas should stay just that, an idea. The fact that this idea could itself to film should be a criminal offense.<br /><br />What was so bad about it I hear you ask. One word ... EVERYTHING.<br /><br />Cost to Hire: $4.50 Cost in Time to Watch: 89 Minutes<br /><br />I want a refund on both! | 0neg
|
Screenwriter Lisa Lutz began writing the screenplay at the age of 21 in 1991 <br /><br />Is she even in business? If someone gave her another chance after this piece of crap, she's up for the most Fortunate Person Of Ever award.This movie sucks to no END...It never ceases to amaze me what the turn into movies...and the fact that they made this writer put it off for a bit? Seriously? I can write better crap than this in my sleep.<br /><br />OK, so how many lines to I have to type? I don't get this at all. I guess I"m a newbie. I guess I don't understand why there should ever be a limit to what anyone has to say...or a quota? Seriously, I don't care if you have a one word sentence...or even a one word response. I mean, c'mon? <br /><br />Thanks...is this enough, finally?<br /><br />This movie is worthless. | 0neg
|
This Kiyoshi Kurosawa ghost movie is pretty wild, and it did have at least one jump scare that caught me off guard. But all in all, the movie is incredibly stupid, with a detective trying to track down a suspected serial killer, only to find out he may have committed one of the crimes. Then he finds himself haunted by a gorgeous Asian lady ghost, and has no idea why (and neither does the viewer). As other murders are committed, he becomes even more confused as the killers are easily found, and this ghost still haunts him for some reason. Not only is the plot completely stupid, the lady ghost is more funny than anything, especially when she suddenly flies across the city, like Wonder Woman. And the ending makes little sense, in fact, the whole movie makes little sense, and I can't recommend it at all. If it didn't take itself so serious, I would think it was supposed to be a black comedy. Outside of "Bright Future" this is the worst movie directed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa I have seen yet. | 0neg
|
The Japenese sense of pacing, editing and musical score must be different than American tastes, but surely this movie could have been so much more with a little more post production work.<br /><br />Someone in Hollywood needs to re-make this movie and I think it would be a big hit. The story is interesting and creepy. There's something about the edges of the city, gritty policemen, earthquakes, sanitariums and mysterious saltwater killings that is enough to be captivating. However, this story has to make just a little bit of sense and maybe be about 40 minutes shorter.<br /><br />I do have to say that the "sixth-sense" effect was in full force in this movie, and that was evident from the very beginning.<br /><br />As it stands, only the die-hard Japanese film lovers should bother seeing this oh-so-boring movie. | 0neg
|
I've seen about four other Japanese horror films and they weren't too impressive. However, I could sense that there was a sensible script guiding the way.<br /><br />Not here, no way. This is about a detective who is trying to tie together similar murders that have been happening. When he finds a suspect to question, the suspect freaks out because they keep seeing a ghost. Then, the ghost starts to follow the detective around FOR A REASON THAT IS NEVER EXPLAINED AND TAKES UP MORE THAN HALF OF THE MOVIE.<br /><br />Bad enough? Oh no. The film keeps switching perspectives to different characters who don't have much to do with the story. I've seen this before in other movies where it shows a different perspective. Not the case here.<br /><br />Also, whatever is happening on screen that is actually tolerable quickly ends. For example, there a few scenes with a slight instrumental score that builds up and...then it just cuts to another scene. I'm aware that this can be a dramatic effect. That's definitely not the intention here. It's just bad editing.<br /><br />Finally, there's the "ghost" who just screams in a way that's not scary or unintentionally funny. It's annoying and it happens a lot throughout the movie.<br /><br />All of the scares have been done before in better ways so you can see them all coming. Then after one of them, the movie is over. At that point, a wave of confusion swept over the audience as I could sense we all felt that we had wasted our time. Someone did a mock clap and laughter ensued. It was better than the whole film. Simply put, AVOID. | 0neg
|
speaking solely as a movie, i didn't really liked it. not because there were no FX or because we had a single cabin as the scenario for the whole film, actually that was what kept me watching it.<br /><br />i didn't like it because the acting was shady, his "friends" are all happy and then they're mad, but you have no idea why; then they take distinct roles, one is the believer, other is the antagonist, but they never really make the point! also, the lighting was terrible and i'm just mentioning technical issues.<br /><br />in a few words, i thing the movie could have just had a "ok i'm outta here!" from some characters. like the lady who doesn't want to hear his version of the bible.<br /><br />about the story itself, everyone is free to write about what they want, and the story is proof of some good writing and imagination. i credit the book author for that, hence, my 4/10.<br /><br />so, in the end, hear the man's story believe it or not, just don't spend the whole time acting like you believe him and being shocked at what he says, and at the same time moving around and making jokes like you don't believe him.<br /><br />Coherence.<br /><br />thanks for reading ;) | 0neg
|
Republic pictures comes late in the game to the "werewolf" er Werecat genre. The plot has a writer returning to Paris after a long trip abroad during which he developed jungle fear during which he had blackouts. He is arriving to great acclaim as his novel that parallels an infamous trial is a best seller. The French government wants to know if he had access to secret documents, something that seems more likely when an official is killed by a "catman". Suspicion really falls on the writer when his fiancé ends up dead. Complicating matters is the return of the blackouts so the writer doesn't know if he's the killer or not.<br /><br />Okay thriller is much too leisurely to be fully enjoyed. There are too many musical numbers early on and too much dead time when things are all talk in the middle and later sections. The acting is fine and the sets quite good but there is a reason why most people I know only remember the top hatted killer, he's the most interesting thing in this film. despite its short running time (just over an hour) I think the reason that this film was rarely seen on TV was that after 20 minutes you begin to lose patience with it. As good as the talk is, I just wished someone would do something. When it finally did happen, in the closing minutes, it was too little too late..<br /><br />Take a pass. | 0neg
|
The special effects of this movie are, especially for its time, laughable and used in such an over-emphasized way that you can't deny their terrible existance.<br /><br />The acting redefines the term "terrible overacting" at the hands of Meg Foster and Richard Joseph Paul, where julie Newman and Andrew Divoff just redefine "bad".<br /><br />***spoilers***<br /><br />The charm in this movie can be found in two things: First is the excellent casting of Carel "Lurch" Struycken as the mysterious psychic Gaunt, who can sense where and when people will die and is always there.<br /><br />The second are original finds, the combination SF-Western is obviously original, if terrible, but other finds are more original, like the gunman Zack Stone being able to sense the pain of the people he shoots (though his acting falls short here).<br /><br />Overal...don't see this movie, except if you love that ol' hunk-o-brutal Carel Struycken, as any self-respecting Dutchman should. | 0neg
|
You get 5 writers together, have each write a different story with a different genre, and then you try to make one movie out of it. It's action, it's adventure, it's sci-fi, it's western, it's a mess. Sorry, but this movie absolutely stinks. 4.5 is giving it an awefully high rating. That said, it's movies like this that make me think I could write movies, and I can barely write. | 0neg
|
Seeing this movie, as I just did for the first time on Turner Classic (which lists it as "Dangerous Female"), can only multiply your appreciation for the 1941 Bogart-Astor version. Ricardo Cortez must have been getting paid by the smirk. I hope he remembered his dentist and his Brylcreem salesman in his will; they made him the actor he was. The women are all good, but no better than that. Well, Una Merkel is a little better. More interesting are the "original" Joel Cairo and Mr. Gutman, who competently deliver many of the individual tics but almost nothing of the set-changing atmospherics of their successors in the roles, Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet. Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor somehow transcended the essential seediness of their characters in the remake; here, Sam Spade and Ruth Wonderley(!) can't. <br /><br />This movie doesn't exactly stink; it lies there like a big slice of ham. Its chief value today is as a reminder that great movies like the '41 "Falcon" don't just happen. On the 1-to-10 scale I rate it a 4, mainly for the camera work and the supporting players. | 0neg
|
Fans of creature feature films have to endure a lot of awful movies lately. Blood Surf shamelessly joins the list of stupid, redundant pulp-horror titles about ridiculously big animals that want to turn the food chain upside down. Crocodiles are particularly successful as we already had to struggle our way through the abysmal 'Crocodile' (directed by a disappointing Tobe Hooper) and 'Lake Placid'. Blood Surf is every bit as bad as these other films and on top of that it likes to exaggerate tremendously. The saltwater-crocodile supposedly is 90 years old, over 30 ft long (!) and it kills for fun! During the film, he amuses himself by devouring a bunch of utterly stupid surfer-dudes & dudettes who came to seek new thrills by surfing in a shark-congested area. The only beautiful aspect about this film is the tropical location. Even though it's a completely inappropriate setting for a film like this, the lagoons and nature looks marvelous. Every other aspect is simply disastrous. There's a quite a bit of gore but it all looks fake and laughable. The dialogues are downright painful to listen to! You won't believe some of the lines these actors have to say! I know surfers are supposed to be a mentally underdeveloped group but I hope for their own sake they're not that stupid! Early in the film, one of the characters refers to Jaws as being a 'mechanical toy' but the croc here looks at least 10 times less real than Spielberg's great white shark. The visual effects in 'Blood Surf' are amateurish and the massacres fail to impress. I won't say too much about the acting since it's secondary in flicks like this. The girls look sexy in wet shirts and their boobs joyfully bounce while running away from the beast. You guessed right: Blood Surf is a very bad film. So bad it becomes fun again. But 'funny' for a whole other reason than James Hickox intended. | 0neg
|
Standard "paint-by-numbers" monster fare, filled with a bunch of routine plot devices from big-creature movies. It's like somebody had a deck of cards with plot ideas from other movies written on them, which were shuffled, and dealt. Whatever plot lines and characters came up in the deal were then tossed into the script. <br /><br />Characters are so cliché-ridden, that you can play a game of "Guess who ends up as a monster meal" after less than ten minutes into the movie, and probably get every single one right--including the order that they will get devoured. Many of the characters are so obnoxious, that you root for the creature to shut them up. Some of the main characters include: a Billy Idol clone who surfs with sharks, a loudmouth brat who flashes bankrolls, a Capt. Ahab guy with a vendetta, and Ahab's girlfriend who does sleazy dances at a bar. Oh, and a big, big beast in need of anger management therapy.<br /><br />Along the way, people argue a lot, pretty girls run around with wet t-shirts, couples make out on exotic beaches, explosions occur, ruins of a shrine appear, and greasy-faced pirates drop by. <br /><br />Amusing, for the most part, but one thing bothered me: the callousness by characters when other people were killed. After one violent demise, they make one-liner jokes. I could almost hear rim shots.<br /><br />Overall, OK, if you have 90 minutes to waste, and you want to laugh at a so-bad-it's-good-movie. Otherwise, you may want to skip this one. | 0neg
|
Sometimes I rest my head and think about the reasons why movies about killer sharks and/or crocodiles are still getting made these days. They've been making these lame "Jaws"-copies since the 70s, it's not like they're getting any more well-liked. The idea is still exactly the same. So we have an animal that starts murdering people. First it takes down some secondary characters, then it starts attacking the main characters, usually played by a couple of nobodies except for someone who used to be a bit more famous, who usually plays a specialist. One of the main characters usually dies before the others kill the animal somehow, usually with an explosion. Then, we usually get a last shot where we see that the animal is still alive, or has laid eggs, etc. etc. "Krocodylus" basically uses the same overused ideas, and does absolutely nothing to create even a tad bit of variation. Unless you count the fact that the "specialist" is a captain in this one variation, in that case your standards are pretty low. It's funny that he's played by Duncan Regehr though, he like totally used to be Zorro.Hell I'll give it a bonus point for that. | 0neg
|
A Movie about a bunch of some kind of filmmakers, who want to make a documentary on a new kind of surfing in shark-infested waters. As an absolute fan of movies including some kind of vicious animals or monsters, I thought this might be my kind of movie... it wasn't!!! This should be more of a guideline of how not to do it! It has a lot of accidental humor in it and the evil beast is an incredible joke, in the final scene it goes after the main characters *rolling*, the feet are obviously waving in the air! It looks ridiculous! Good for a laugh though. If it were only for the lack of talent between the actors, the embarrassingly stupid dialogs and the hilariously stupid crocodile, it would be at least worth a laugh, but it gets worse: I'd guess, the people in charge of this movie noticed how weak it was, so they though up the old idea of "sex sells"... Totally, i mean TOTALLY without any reasons one of the main actresses shows her breasts to the beast. And somewhere towards the beginning there's some kind of meaningless "makeout". This is the last ingredient making the movie absolute trash to me. It's incredible how people actually spend time producing such rubbish! If you are seeking for a real waste of time: watch this movie!!! | 0neg
|
An MTV-style film crew consisting of American T.V. programme producer Zack Zardine (Matt Borlenghi) his camerawoman, the Australian Cecily (Kate Fisher) and two surfer 'dudes' named Bog Hall (Dax Miller) and Jeremy (Joel West) arrive on some nice looking island somewhere, it's not actually revealed where. The crew plan to shoot an expose on 'bloodsurfing' which is apparently the latest craze in extreme sports. Surfers throw bait into the sea and cut themselves to attract sharks, just to see if they can out-surf them without being eaten. Once there they are greeted by Sonny Lofranco (Cris Vertido) and his wife Melba (Susan Africa). Their search for the perfect location leads them to the shark infested waters of Lilo-Cay. Sonny, Melba and their daughter Lemmya (Maureen Larrazabal) take them in their boat. Soon after arriving and having already shot some 'bloodsurfing' footage Sonny, Melba and Lemmya are all killed by a 30 foot saltwater crocodile that some say 'owns' the island. The boat is sunk. Zack, Cecily, Bog and Jeremy appear stuck on the island until such time a rescue party arrives. However, after a run in with some, erm well I don't really know what they are. Pirates? Drug smugglers? Revolutionairies? Fat ugly people who just don't like being with other people? Who knows? And more importantly who cares? Not me that's for sure. Anyway, after escaping from these guys who look like pirates, they are picked up just off the coast of the island by Captain John Dirks (Duncan Regehr) and his girl Arty (Taryn Reif as Tara Reif). The film crew believe they have been saved. Little do they know that the crocodile and Captain Dirks go way back and he has a score to settle and four members of a film crew aren't going to stop him. Captain Dirks heads back to Lilo-Cay for a final showdown with the giant man-eating crocodile.<br /><br />Directed by James D.R. Hickox this is one awful film, but it's still not as bad as Tobe Hoopers Crocodile (2000). Everything about this film sucks. The script by Sam Bernard and Robert L.Levy is terrible, extremely slow as the crocodile isn't even seen or mentioned before the 30 minute mark and by that time I was seriously bored and annoyed with the hideously unlikeable characters thought up by Bernard and Levy. The whole film is also frustratingly predictable as well, within the first 10 minutes anyone familiar with horror film stereotypes and stock characters will be able to guess who dies and who will survive. The crocodile effects are awful and seem to be repeated over and over, there is a small puppet head that obviously has someones arm stuck inside it controlling it's movements as the water splashes become huge! The CGI shots of the crocodile are just plain embarrassing to watch. There is no gore apart from when a character is bitten in half which is achieved using CGI to digitally remove the actors legs, again it looks terrible. There is also a brief scene when someone is impaled on wooden spikes when they set a trap off. There is a reasonable amount of nudity and sex, plus the female actresses are nice and easy on the eye. There are basic continuity and logical errors in the film too, in one sequence Cecily is filming Bog and Jeremy 'bloodsurfing' but from the angle and distance she is at it would be physically impossible to obtain footage of both the sharks and surfers at the same time, and surely that is the whole point of her shot? When Dirks manages to harpoon the crocodile the angle of the wire changes dramatically between shots, in one shot the angle of the line looks like it's coming from the sky, in the shot straight after the angle is completely different and it seems as if the line is coming from below the surface of the water when in actual fact the harpoon is attached to the back of the boat and the line should be almost level with the surface. I could carry on, like why does the crocodile jump off the edge of a cliff if it's so smart as this film tries to make out? But I would probably exceed the 1000 word limit if I listed everything that was wrong with this film, so I won't. I hated this film, but rather scarily it's still not as bad as Tobe Hoopers effort at a giant crocodile film. Definitely one to avoid. | 0neg
|
"It's not like that big mechanical toy", says a character early on, commenting on "Jaws". Well, "Blood Surf" would only wish to have a beast as convincing as the shark of the "Jaws" series. In other words, the digital special effects of this movie are TERRIBLE. Acting and directing are not much better, either; they seem more suited to a deodorant or a bubble-gum commercial than to a horror movie. The attitude of the people who worked on this film shows contempt not only for the genre, but for the audience too. Saying you "liked" this film only encourages filmmakers to offer us more of this crap, further destroying the poor horror genre. (*1/2) | 0neg
|
Oh God, I must have seen this when I was only 11 or twelve, (don't ask how) I may have been young, but I wasn't stupid. Anyone could see that this is a bad movie, nasty, gross, unscary and very silly. I've seen more impressive effects at Disneyland, I've seen better performances at a school play, And I've seen more convincing crocodiles at the zoo, where they do nothing but sit in the water, ignoring the children tapping on the glass.<br /><br />The story is set in northern Australia. A handful of ambitious young people, are trying out a new water sport, surfing in shark filled waters. It soon becomes evident that something more dangerous is in the water. After they learn what, they get the help of a grizzly middle aged fisherman, who wants to kill the animal to avenge the eating of his family.<br /><br />I think I have seen every crocodile film made in the last fifteen years, the best of which is Lake Placid, and the worse of which is its sequel. Blood Surf would have to be the second worst croc flick I think, with Primeval and Crocodile tailing closely behind.<br /><br />The Australian Saltwater Crododile is one of the most dangerous creatures out there, resulting in more than a hundred injuries or deaths every year. Movies like Blood Surf however ruin not only the ferocious image of such a creature, but a good hour and a half of the viewer's life. Unless you really want to see it, avoid Blood Surf. | 0neg
|
...which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Overall, "DinoCroc" was a much better movie. Sure, in that movie Matt Borlenghi played a complete wuss-bag who spent the entire movie crying about his little brother getting eaten by the DinoCroc. But the special effects in "DinoCroc" were better, the plot lines were better, and the acting was better. Here are the problems with "Blood Surf" -- 1) the killer crocodile looks like a kid's model with a retractable jaw. 2) the plot is ridiculous. Matt Borlenghi & Co. get shipwrecked on a deserted island, in which they encounter a rabid group of ugly Filipino natives who try to force themselves upon the women in the group. Which was a complete waste of 15 minutes of film. And 3) there's not enough croc time. There are a couple of redeeming qualities of "Blood Surf" -- the actresses are pretty attractive and Matt Borlenghi gets eaten by the croc towards the end of the movie. But if you're on your deathbed and only have enough time to watch one Matt Borlenghi/killer crocodile movie, skip this one and fire up "DinoCroc" instead. | 0neg
|
Some might scoff, but there is actually a real art with making particularly bad films. This misses out on all fronts.<br /><br />A bunch of young people -- women with heaving breasts and continuously wet T-Shirts, naturally -- go to film "blood surfing" and end up running into a 31 foot crocodile.<br /><br />Not only was the croc obviously fake, but some of the props [notice the boat hitting the reef in particular] look like they've come out of thunderbirds!<br /><br />No good, from start to finish. Don't see it! | 0neg
|
I never actually thought that a film could be so atrocious, but alas I was wrong. Terrible acting, terrible plot, terrible effects. The Crocodile was awful and as for the stupid sex/killing scene all in one, that was a bad move from the word go. It was truly shocking and that is not a compliment! How can someone make this film, watch it back and then actually say "Yeah, thats a good movie. People will watch that" If you haven't seen it I beg you DON'T BOTHER :-( | 0neg
|
**SPOILERS**<br /><br />This is one BAD movie. Seriously. Acting in absolutely horrible, the FX are dreadfull and the plot is down right awful. But hey, its so bad that its fun watching! The script is SO bad that its enjoyable! You just have to cringe and laugh at lines such as "I guess thats what you call CROCTEASING." as the women flash their breasts at the crocodile. I mean COME ON thats funny cause its so bad! It has such horrible jokes that they're funny! But after a while it just becomes to much as the movie turns into crap. I really started to fall asleep. Trust me though, the plastic croc foot stamping on the leaves and the constant swishes of a crock tail well keep you laughing for a long time. Though I have to say it had one cool part when the croc ripped that dude in half and he just hung there for a while figuring out what to do. Heh heh mindless movie, which HAS to be nominated for the MST3K line!! | 0neg
|
Oh, CGI. A blessing when used properly. A sin with it's used by people who have no idea what their doing. Sadly, that's not the only thing that's used poorly in this umpteen Jaws rip-off.<br /><br />Ok, anybody who has read any number of my posted reviews has probably noticed 2 things. 1: I like low-budget horror movies. And 2: If there is a cute guy in said low-budget movie, I'll usually point them out. So, let's just get this out of the way right now. This is one low-budget horror movie I didn't like. The acting, for the most part, is horrible, effects laughable, and the script rivals Battlefield Earth as the worst I've witnessed this year. As far as the resident cute boy...Dax Miller (Bog) wins that prize hands down. This boy is hot! And surprisingly, he's not just a toned body with nice eyes and a cute butt...he can actually act (well, as much as he can in this odious film). Now that we have the housekeeping chores out of the way, let's get on with it.<br /><br />In Cliff Notes version, here's the story (don't worry, I'll try not to give anything away)...<br /><br />A film crew travels to a remote island to film a documentary about two surfers (established cute boy and his buddy) who surf with sharks. Unknown to them is a rather large salt water crocodile lurking around the island. Croc shows up, mayhem ensues, and people are eaten. Roll end credits.<br /><br />As I said earlier, this film pretty much blows. It started pretty well, but soon devolved into being silly and stupid. A main character becomes lunch (in a rather humorous way), and our remaining heros utter one-liners at the victims expense. Also, if this croc is at the top of the food chain on both the land and in the water, what's with all the sharks around? If this thing can eat a 40 foot boat, I don't think a few skimpy sharks would stick around. The FX is some of the worst I have ever had the displeasure to see. The CGI is horrendous, and they've even managed to screw up the animatronic crocs. Attention, filmmakers. National Geographic. Discovery Store. The Croc Hunter. They know what crocodiles look like. You obviously didn't reference any of these judging by the monstrosity seen towards the end of the film. And what's with the pirate/drug pusher gang? Did you just need another reason to rip off a woman's top? <br /><br />It's funny how we get little sub-genres in the movie world. With Alligator and it's sequels, Lake Placid, Crocodile, and now Blood Surf, it now looks like "over-sized crocodile/alligator" movies should now get their own category at Blockbuster. Alligator was good. Lake Placid was good. I even thought Tobe Hooper's Crocodile was good. Blood Surf, sucked.<br /><br />My grade: D- | 0neg
|
Upon viewing Tobe Hooper's gem, Crocodile, in 2000, I developed a great interest in the college/crocodile niche of the exploitation/monster genre. I look forward to a wayward producer to follow up with several sequels to these delightful bonbons of camp goodness. If only Ed Wood could bring his subtle sense of flair and dignity to these remarkable scripts. With Ed writing the scripts, and a room full of monkees creating crocodile special effects on a computer, all we'd need would be a cast of crocky fodder with Russ Meyer breasts and Ren Hoek pectoral implants.<br /><br />While Tobe Hooper's crocky opus referenced his own movies, Blood Surf chose to dish out a bunch of aging themes from the chum bucket of other movies. See if you can look past the Revenge of the Nerds sequel sets to find the allusions/homages?/rip-offs to Jaws, Temple of Doom, Indiana Jones' Last Crusade, The Convent, Godzilla 2000, and any James Bond movie. Also, try to find the ready-for-tv fade where the editor gave up on making sense of the stock.<br /><br />I was disappointed the crock didn't get to try out its sotto voce tenor with a soliloquy on environmentalism...or crocky appreciation, but the quasi-Captain Ahab of the story does get his tour de force speach. Perhaps, in the coming years, we'll see a crock galloping off after a shootout into a golden sunset. Or hopefully, a monkey will flush a crocky down the toilet of an international space station for midgets and enjoy the exploitative waltz of zero-G monkey/midget/crocodile bloodshed.<br /><br />All-in-all, the lack of a whammy bar in the surf music irked me. | 0neg
|
You, know, I can take the blood and the sex, but that thong bikini shot pretty much did me in. Someone get that girl some pasta before it's too late!<br /><br />And you know, it's just not a good idea for a schlock movie to start off by mentioning the much better movie it's ripping off.<br /><br />I gave this one a 2, just because it's marginally better than Tobe Hooper's CROCODILE. | 0neg
|
The only real highlight in the movie is the death of the sniveling guy and the reaction of the surviving characters to it.<br /><br />In every other way, this film is a very lame rip-off of Jaws, Lake Placid, and Alligator, with a little bit of Godzilla (1998) thrown in.<br /><br />As is standard for a 1990's-style horror movie, the two non-starring females each take their clothes off at least once. The female lead doesn't, since she obviously has a better agent. <br /><br />The whole movie surrounds the filming of a really dumb extreme sport called blood surfing, in which surfers cut themselves and surf in shark-infested waters. In this film, a giant salt-water crocodile also happens to be in the area. People get eaten. The movie ends.<br /><br />I don't mind a bad horror movie, but I really hate a dull bad horror movie, which this definitely is. | 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits