text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Boy what a dud this mess was.But it only lasts an hour and I only paid a buck for it so I'll live....unlike the entire cast of this 1933 clunker who are all dust by now.<br /><br />So anyway a small village starts having bodies turning up that have been drained of all their blood.The local yokels start talking about vampires ,of course,and a little more loudly after each body is found.The town sheriff or constable or whatever he is,played by awesome actor Melvyn Douglas,tries to tell them otherwise.When he mentions the fact that the dead have one large hole on each side of the neck,instead of two holes close together, the locals simply then say it's a giant vampire bat.The constable insists that vampires do not exist and it must be a human culprit doing the killings.<br /><br />But Melvyn doesn't seem too bothered either way.He spends most of his time trying to get into the pantaloons of his sweetie,played by Faye Wray.Also in this mix is the town simpleton,played by Dwight Frye,who always seemed to have played the same role in every movie he did.He further freaks out the townspeople by catching bats and drinking his own blood.Lionel Atwill plays the town doctor who seemingly is trying to help the constable solve the crimes.And boy does he ever stink as an actor.Atwill is as close to cardboard in this role as he could get.And Lionel Barrymore is also in this thing....lots of big names to be such a pile of guano.<br /><br />Other than the terrible mis-title this movie has,the alternate name,"The Blood Sucker" is much better,this movie is also dull and plodding and just silly.<br /><br />For me the high point of the movie is watching Frye,he nails the freaky town weirdo but other than him this movie didn't offer much.And then when you find out the reason for the strange deaths and see the special effect thing that required all this blood you'll really be let down.<br /><br />Bela Lugosi did a lot of awful pictures but at least he was fun and interesting to watch.Think of this movie as a really bad Lugosi clunker WITHOUT Lugosi and you'll get a feel for how miserably bad this mess was.<br /><br />If you can't make a good 1930's horror film at least put Lugosi in it. | 0neg
|
The Vampire Bat is set in the small German village of Klineschloss where Gustave Schoen (Lionel Belmore) the Burgermeister is holding a meeting with Inspector Karl Brettschneider (Melvyn Douglas) from the local constabulary about all the recent murders, six victims have been discovered in as many weeks all drained of blood & bearing the same two puncture wounds on their necks. Brettschneider doesn't have a single clue but the superstitious elders of the village believe the deaths to be the work of a Vampire. Brettschneider isn't convinced but the scared villagers keep telling tales of seeing a large Bat, meanwhile the latest victim Martha Mueller (Rita Carlyle) has been found. Brettschneider comes under increasing pressure to solve the murders but can he really believe that a giant Vampire Bat is responsible & if it is how's he going to stop it?<br /><br />Directed by Frank R. Strayer The Vampire Bat was a cheapie from Majestic Pictures to cash in on the success of it's two stars Atwill & Wray & their success in the previous years Doctor X (1932) & is more of a murder mystery rather than a horror as the exploitative & enticing title may have lead you to believe & quite frankly it's rather dull. The script by Edward T. Lowe Jr. takes itself rather seriously & sets up the basic story that something is killing local villagers & that something could possibly be a Vampire, then for most of it's duration the film focuses on Brettschneider & his incompetent investigations which are, not to put too fine a point on it, boring. The Vampire Bat also has a bit of an identity crisis as it doesn't quite know what it wants to be, the title would suggest a horror film while the majority of it could easily be described as a thriller with the final few minutes descending into silly sci-fi. There is no Vampire Bat, the attempts to fool you are pathetic, all the character's are broad stereotypes & you can tell the villain of the piece straight away & as a whole there is nothing particularly exciting or entertaining about The Vampire Bat. I know it's old but that's not an excuse as cinema has moved on a lot since 1933 & a bland, flat, dull, boring & misleading film such as The Vampire Bat just doesn't cut it these days, just look at the original King Kong (1933) released the same year & how brilliantly that still holds up today. I didn't like it & I doubt many modern film-goers would either, it's as simple & straight forward as that.<br /><br />Director Strayer doesn't do anything special but this is a case in point where I can cut the film some slack because of it's age, as a whole it's pretty much point, shoot & hope for the best stuff. There isn't much in the way of atmosphere or scares although some of the sets which were already existing ones taken from The Old Dark House (1932) & Universal's European set on their back-lot are nice & add a certain ambiance to things.<br /><br />Technically The Vampire Bat can't compare to anything even remotely modern, for the age of it it's alright I suppose but again I draw your attention back to the original King Kong. Speaking of King Kong it's star Fay Wray has a role in this as does horror icon Lionel Atwill, I'll be kind & say the acting is OK.<br /><br />The Vampire Bat will I imagine fool a lot of people into thinking that it's a horror film about Vampire Bats when in fact it isn't, personally I thought the whole thing was a bit of a bore. It's short & it tells it's story reasonably enough but I must admit I'm not a fan. | 0neg
|
'The Vampire Bat' is definitely of interest, being one of the early genre-setting horror films of the 1930's, but taken in isolation everything is a bit too creaky for any genuine praise.<br /><br />The film is set in a European village sometime in the 19th Century, where a series of murders are being attributed to vampirism by the suspicious locals. There is a very similar feel to James Whale's 'Frankenstein' and this is compounded by the introduction of Lionel Atwill's Dr Niemann character, complete with his misguided ideas for scientific advancement.<br /><br />The vampire theme is arbitrary and only used as a red-herring by having suspicion fall on bat-loving village simpleton Herman (Dwight Frye), thus providing the excuse for a torch-wielding mob to go on the rampage - as if they needed one.<br /><br />This is one of a trio of early horror films in which Lional Atwill and Fay Wray co-starred (also 'Doctor X' and 'The Mystery of the Wax Museum') and like their other collaborations the film suffers from ill-advised comic relief and a tendency to stray from horror to mainstream thriller elements. Taken in context though, 'The Vampire Bat' is still weak and derivative.<br /><br />All we are left with is a poor-quality Frankenstein imitation, with the vampire elements purely a device to hoodwink Dracula fans. But for the title the film would struggle to even be considered as a horror and it is worth noting that director Frank Strayer was doing the 'Blondie' films a few years later. | 0neg
|
CLASS OF '61 <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.33:1<br /><br />Sound format: Stereo<br /><br />In 1861, class members from the West Point Academy are torn apart by the outbreak of the Civil War.<br /><br />Gregory Hoblit's OK historical drama makes an obvious point - virtuous men are rendered blind by conflict - though the production seems a little stilted, despite authentic period detail and a cast of talented newcomers (Clive Owen, Christien Anholt, Josh Lucas, Andre Braugher, Laura Linney, etc.), toplined by Dan Futterman as a conscientious Southerner who takes up arms in defence of slavery, pitting him in direct conflict with his former Northern friends. The movie's emphasis on such a misguided - though sympathetic - character is particularly brave, but the drama is otherwise flat and superficial, and Hoblit's direction is efficient rather than inspired. | 0neg
|
A remake of Alejandro Amenabar's Abre los Ojos, but this time with a living, breathing mask as a lead. For the dubious advantage of an English sound track, we endure Tom Cruise's soulless performance, as usual, with zero depth. Yes, the character is identified with his persona, but we usually are given some character underneath that to hold our interest. His empty posturing negates any erotic energy that could have been between his character and Cruz or Diaz.<br /><br />There is an acting exercise that involves using masks to free the actor to enrich his presentation of character by verbal and body language means. Cruise's masking only painfully emphasizes his inadequacy as an actor. Do see the 1997 original Amenabar Open Your Eyes! | 0neg
|
Well, I hate hollywood, but love cinema so i have to watch these cruddy movies in theaters. And, I was hoping Vanilla Sky would be good. i was hoping that they would either keep the original "Open Your Eyes" exactly the same, or they would make it their own. Well, it happened to be a little bit of both, and it sucked.<br /><br />It started out good. I love Radiohead. I wish there was more of that. But by the end we are listening to Good Vibrations by The Beach Boys. Talk about a wide range of suck between. They had one or two good songs in the club and maybe a couple others, but why oh why did they have to blare GV during the climax. It was more annoying than confusing or blatant. Especially when it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLOT. At least put some meaning behind the songs. Kid A = primary. Whatever.<br /><br />He also did a bang up job with the club scene. That was cool. Otherwise the movie was one big ball of arrogance. As if audiences would get the movie. The ones that would get it read subtitles, and the rest won't. Its as simple as that. The motivations got all screwed up. I didn't comprehend the Diaz motivations (hadn't they done the Chicken Soup night before?) and some of the others. And I hate Kurt Russell. Stay overboard. Tom Cruise can't act (especially in these types of movie [i.e. Eyes Wide Shut]). And the elevator. I get it. Anyways they tried improving the original with a crappy american rock soundtrack and crappy angles and good film print and glossy processing and it would have helped if crowe hadn't screwed it up.<br /><br />2/10 Major disappointment. | 0neg
|
This wasn't the major disaster that I was expecting, but that is about as positive as I can be in my description of the movie. I'm not sure what was meant to be funny about this movie, but I suppose it's all a matter of taste. Personally, I don't find it funny to watch morons living their idiotic lives or making fools of themselves on television, but then again, I'm not a fan of Jerry Springer's pathetic daytime talk show. I didn't get too bored watching this, but I was definitely never enjoying it, either. If you're in the mood to see a bad movie, but one that isn't too painful to sit through, this is a good choice. | 0neg
|
I'm not a regular viewer of Springer's, but I do watch his show in glimpses and I think the show is a fine guilty pleasure and a good way to kill some time. So naturally, I'm going to watch this movie expecting to see "Jerry Springer Uncensored." First of all, Jerry appears in approximately twenty minutes of the film's running time. The other hour and twenty minutes is spent building up this pseudo-farce about trailer-trash, jealousy, incest and deception. Jaime Pressley (who looks hot as HELLLL) is a trailer-trash slut who sleeps with her stepfather (a very unusual-looking, chain-smoking, drunken Michael Dudikoff who finally strays from his action hero persona). The mom finds out about the affair, they get into a fight, they want to take it to the "Jerry" show (that's right, no Springer). And then we have a parallel story with an African-American couple. They take it to the "Jerry" show. The characters collide. Blah, blah, freakin' blah! Trash has rarely been this BORRRINGG!!!! I was wondering why the hell Springer has millions of fans, yet none of them checked out his movie. Well, now it's TOTALLY obvious!! Whether you love him or hate him, you will hate this movie! How can I explain? It's a total mess of a motion picture (if that's what you call it). It's so badly edited, with scenes that just don't connect, and after a period of time the plot virtually disappears and it's simply all over the map! Just imagine a predictable soap opera transformed into a comic farce. With seldom laughs. <br /><br />My only positive note is a hot girl-girl scene. That's as risque as it gets. Don't get me wrong, the scene's pretty risque, but if you look at the overall film comparing it to the material on Springer's program--this disastrous farce seems extremely sanitized.<br /><br />My score: 3 (out of 10) | 0neg
|
Somebody could probably make a great documentary about the Jerry Springer Show, but this fictionalized version merely succeeds in draining anything authentic and interesting out of the trash-TV phenomenon. There are dozens of famously bad movies (e.g. "Manos: The Hands of Fate") that show more creativity and spirit than this dreary, witless waste of film.<br /><br />Seriously, why not a documentary about the Jerry Springer Show, that would begin to answer some of the real questions like: Who are these people? What happens to their lives after they appear on this show? How did the mayor of Cincinatti find himself here?<br /><br />One good line: During an "orientation" session for guests: "People, I can't emphasize this enough: NO WEAPONS!" | 0neg
|
The only thing that kept me from vomiting after seeing this movie was the fact that these are just actors and not the freak show that usually appears on the TV show. This is also the main reason that fans of the TV show won't like the movie, but not the only reason. This movie has about as much entertainment value as getting a root canal. It approaches the abyssmal depths of bad movie making, and then gets even worse. I won't waste your time describing this movie in further detail; suffice it to say that I pity the poor camera people who had to suffer through watching this c**p the first time. | 0neg
|
Lets make a movie about a talk show that already exists and basically have everything that happens on the show! Well if that idea doesn't intrigue you, which it shouldn't, stay away from ringmaster. I had the displeasure of seeing this in the theater and actually being able to sit through this mess of a movie. I guess jerry springer doesn't play himself as it shows from the cheap props for his show (yes it looks even cheaper than the real jerry springer show) and he is only known as jerry in the film. The plot (if you can call it that) is about a daughter while living with her mother decides to start sleeping with the mother's live in boyfriend. So the mother's brilliant idea is to call the jerry springer show as well as getting it on with her daughter's boyfriend. (Is it any coincidence they live in a trailer park). Meanwhile somewhere else in america a woman finds her cheatin' man with her friend in bed together. So of course call america's therapist Jerry springer! I'd talk about the rest of the film but even thinking about the film now is giving me a headache. Jamie Pressly who plays the daughter looks totally unattractive in the movie. And remember Michael Dudikoff the kick ass karate master from the american ninja series? Well take a look at him now as a white trash drunk. The thing is he really looks too horrible and out of shape to call it "getting in touch with his charecter". But if your idea of fun is seeing Jerry Springer sing a country song about his own show or guys hooking up with transvestites...well...JUST WATCH THE SHOW INSTEAD! ... at least steve was smart enough to stay out of this flick. | 0neg
|
Meaning: if this movie got pitched, scripted, made, released, promoted as something halfway respectable given the constraints (yeah, I know, Springer, sex, violence), where is He?<br /><br />Reminded me of porn movies I saw in college, plot and dialogue wise.... shoulda just done something for the scurrilous porno market, showed penetration and be done with it-- would have made more money, the ultimate point of this exercise.... | 0neg
|
Please avoid this movie at all costs. This is without a doubt, the worst movie I've ever seen. Most movies have at least one redeeming value. This has none. Totally horrible! | 0neg
|
Ringmaster, Jerry Springer's pathetic excuse for wasting film that should be recycled as toilet paper recently destroyed my confidence in the art of film. First of all, it was made. Second of all, people went to see it. Third, some people voted it the best movie they have ever seen. If a monkey could make a movie, i'm 100 percent sure that it would be 1 billion times as good. Most crappy movies have their moments, (even Godzilla had a few cool special effects) this film's moment was when I left the theater nauseated. The only thing that possibly could've made this movie any worse would be if Jerry Springer was the star. If I want to stare at crap for an hour and a half, i'll take a dump in a can. If anyone didn't utterly despise this movie, I pity you, and your children, and your children's children's children; however, contrary to Springer's beliefs, I clearly don't condone children having sex. | 0neg
|
I love watching Jerry as much as the rest of the world, but this poor excuse for a soft-core porno flick is needlessly offensive, lacks anything resembling wit, and serves merely as a vehicle of self-promotion for Springer. Even though it runs a quick 90 minutes, the film drags hideously, and I should have had the common sense to walk out. Simply atrocious. | 0neg
|
To preface this review, I must say that I was, I suppose, a little curious about this movie.. However, I probably would not have seen it had I not had my arm slightly twisted.<br /><br />In my opinion, this movie shows just how depraved man can be. In my eyes, the worst thing about this whole Springer phenomenon is not that type of people on the "Jerry Springer Show" act as they do (which in itself is eminently reproachable), but that many people are so curious and excited to watch them and hear about their lives (yes, I suppose that includes me.. to whatever extent it is true). If not glorifying that kind of behavior (as some might say) at the very least we may be subtly corrupting our minds and/or desenstizing ourselves to this type of behavior.<br /><br />But enough soapbox (sort of). Here's the skinny: the movie has an R rating, and while it may deserve only that (I did look away at some scenes, so I'm not completely sure), I feel that an NC-17 (tip of the hat to the other reviewer) might be a little more appropriate for the immense sexual content (a cynic might comment that the movie was just one big excuse to show sex on the big screen). The plot is very bizarre, tying together the stories of an absolutely dysfunctional family and a group of stereotypical blacks upset who will appear on different Springer shows. At the end, the movie leaves one with some resolvement- and Springer rhetoric about the need for us to see the real world (evidently as seen through his show). I agree with him there- it is important to know how the world really is so that we can seek to effect positive change. Having said that, let me just tell you- the world's pretty bad- glance in a newpaper or the news to see that, but let's not shell out good money to support the kind of sensationalistic and perhaps formulaic titallition that Springer seeks to give us. | 0neg
|
Ok, let me say that I didn't expect a film starring Jerry Springer to be cinematic gold, all I asked for was it to be cinematic...and it wasn't even that. It looked like someone's bad home movies. Poorly acted, scripted, and filled to the brim with nudity of the most unnattractive people I've ever seen.<br /><br />The film's "plot" focuses on a low-class family who decide to go on the "Jerry Farrelly Show" to discuss multiple affairs between a mother, daughter, stepfather and the daughter's fiancee. From there, the movie fizzles and develops into a unique experience: white-trash pornography. There's redneck sex, interacial sex, even sex between Jerry and his wife? (Yuk!) This film encouraged me to want to run out of the theater and get a second circumcision. At least it was mercifully short. Disgusting and degrading. African-Americans and working class America should be offended. (Howard Stern should be pleased however, he didn't squander his attempt for film stardom. His was smart, funny and entertaining)<br /><br />MY GRADE: F+ (the daughter was hot) | 0neg
|
I can't quite say that "Jerry Springer:Ringmaster" is the worst film I have ever seen. The film would be better off if it were, because at least the worst film I've ever seen, (Prom Night II) interested me enough for me to hate it. My only reaction after leaving the theatre happened when I looked up at the clock and discovered that only 90 minutes had passed. It had seemed much more like years. It is an endless repetition of poor people, (or what Jerry Springer seems to believe poor people are), screwing each other, hitting each other, insulting each other, and then repeating the process with the same attention to duty the rest of us use when shampooing. The plot, which covers how a group of stupid people mangle their lives badly enough to provide grist for the Jerry Springer mill, advances solely because of the idiocy of the characters. This makes it impossible to care what happens to them. It never mattered to me whether they got on the show, or what they said, or who slept with whom. Maybe I'm not supposed to care about them. Maybe I'm supposed to look at them as some kind of comic type-- to see their outrageous behavior as inherently funny. Too bad it isn't. The humor is not outrageous. It's innocuous. It's predictable. Humor has to have something behind it, some kind of painful irony or life experience, in order to function. Scatology is not wit. An example. A mother catches her daughter and her husband in bed. To take revenge she marches across the trailer park and gives oral sex to her daughter's boyfriend. Since I was over the shock of Jerry Springer's show a long time ago, I had the same reaction I had to Andrew Dice Clay's obscene nursery rhymes; not laughter, just yawning. Lastly, I found Springer's pose as a populist tiresome and unconvincing. If he really were an advocate of the poor, he would bring on a single mom from Bed-Sty to talk about trying to raise her kids in New York City on $12,000 a year. Or, failing that, he would at least give the participants of his shows a cut of his profits. Jerry Springer gets millions for his shows, his movie, his book and videos. His guests just get round trip air fare, hotel accommodations, and a chance to humiliate themselves. If he liked poor people so much, he'd give them at least some of the money they earn for him. It appears that Springer wanted to make this movie to grab some legitimacy for himself. Jeez, with all his fine work, you'd think he'd have earned our respect already. Anyway, the film is weak and boring. It doesn't even succeed at being offensive. If you want to have a better evening, videotape a bug zapper for a night and then watch that. | 0neg
|
THE RINGMASTER stars Jerry Springer as a TV talkshow host called Jerry , but it`s not THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW , his guests are trailer trash , but not the trailer trash you get on THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW, they attack one another , but not like on.....What is the point of making a movie about THE JERRY SPRINGER show and pretending it`s not THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW ? And on top of that this is a very boring film | 0neg
|
Oh Dear, Jerry may be the undisputed king of talkshow but the movies are a whole different ball game, and he's way out of his league. The script for this film is so poor it has to be seen to be believed and its sad to see such vaguely familiar actors as Michael Dudikoff (80's action B'movie king), Michael Jai White (Last seen in the Sci Fi flop Spawn') as well as Surviving the Games' William MacNamara (who is involved in the only half funny situation in the whole film!) stoop this low for employment. If you are a fan of Jerry then stick to his TV show as this is a total waste of and hour and a half. After I had finished sitting through this I managed to catch the last half an hour of Rocky 5 on TV, which looked like a cinematic masterpiece in comparison, I think that says more than enough!!!<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
For the life of me, I cannot get why they would want to make a movie about the "Jerry Springer Show". It's so incrediably trashy. Some ways, sadly it's a guilty pleasure. We all have to admit that we've seen at least one episode. It's part of our pop culture. I saw this on USA recently. It's pretty bad. I will admit that. Jerry does a horrible job of what I think he meant as acting. Or something like it. Jamie Pressley is in it. She's playing herself basically. All she needed was her lover boy, Kid Rock. It would've been perfect then. So, I would recommend skipping "Ringmaster". Just watch the "Jerry Springer Show". It's more enjoyable than this.<br /><br />2/10 | 0neg
|
You don't need to write a script for this trashed outrage! You just sit back and watch a pair of moonshine women and guests duke each other out before a riotous audience exposure at "The Jerry Show"! Violent and obnoxious, this cash-in on the real Jerry Springer program reveals everything that the over-rated hyped talk show doesn't show to you on the air - - unless you have a collection of uncensored videos made by the producers of "Cops". Even the outside world of Springerland reveals the most amateurish acting of the decade! This goes to show you that THE GONG SHOW MOVIE had a central character in a motion picture turkey. Change the channel! REJECTED<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
I think that, deep down in the darkest, slimiest part of their heart, everyone likes Jerry Springer just a little bit. While his show is undeniably offensive and stupid, it also gives us a chance to see that, relatively speaking, most of us have it real good. When you look at the trailer park livin', dollar whiskey drinkin', incest lovin' people on the Springer show, it makes even your worst day seem like a walk in the park. Jerry is performing a public service, and we should be grateful. He ditched a political career to host the show, just for us.<br /><br />What we should not be grateful for in any way is the piece of garbage movie "Ringmaster". "Ringmaster" shows what life is like for people who wind up being guests on the show, or so they would like us to think. The movie follows the pre-requisite Springer story line: Love triangles. One triangle involves Connie, her daughter Angel, and her husband Rusty. The other involves Starletta, Vonda, and Demond. When the two hapless groups meet up in LA, their lives intertwine and collide head-on, all culminating in an explosive episode of the Springer show. It's like what "Short Cuts" would be if Robert Altman had had a severe crack habit.<br /><br />"Ringmaster" is true to the show, as it is stupid and offensive from start to finish. It also makes me very glad that I don't live in the squalor it's characters do. But the movie has a problem. It's billed as a comedy, but it just isn't very funny. What laughs there are to be had are few and far between. Maybe some people watch this and laugh non-stop. If you think blow jobs and rape are funny, well then I guess you're one of those folks. Personally, I laughed two or three times and spent the rest of the movie in utter awe of the agonizing horrors of white-trash life.<br /><br />The Jerry Springer Show just isn't meant to make the leap from TV to the silver screen. What's funny in an hour long show (less, when you count commercials) isn't necessarily going to be funny in a ninety minute movie. Movies have to tell a story, and that's something else "Ringmaster" has trouble with. The story is threadbare. There are so many plot holes and continuity errors that any attempt at telling a cohesive narrative is quickly put asunder. And even if there weren't such problems, how much fun can you pull out of a story of stereotypical people in a stereotypical story? Even the Hollywood formula couldn't make this better. "Ringmaster: is so bad, it even screws up the best part of the Springer show: the Final Thought. Somehow, even the smartest and simplest aspect of the show wound up blowing harder than the slutty women the film is built around.<br /><br />The worst offender in all of this is Springer himself. He's such a bad actor that he can't even play himself convincingly. Watching Springer play Springer is sad. It's like he was going for a 'What if Woody Allen played Jerry Springer' vibe, and he failed. Miserably. He went to the trouble of producing this disaster, the least he could do is try to make it just that much better.<br /><br />Not that I'm saying everyone else in this movie put in an award worthy performance. Just the opposite. They all suck. Not so surprisingly, no one in this movie went on to greatness. The best any of them was did was Molly Hagan landing a job on a Nickelodeon sitcom. Apparently, Nickelodeon has no problem with hiring a woman who starred in the most vile film of the '90's to star in a children's program. It makes you wonder what kind of things the other adults on that channel have done in their pasts.<br /><br />Here are my Final Thoughts: What we have here is a group of people with no self respect and a man with money to burn, who have met and put their resources together to produce a film that shows how much they hate themselves and how little they think of the intelligence of their viewing audience. Should we accept people who make movies that treat us like severely brain-damaged lumps of goo? I say no. Somewhere out there, in this crazy, mixed up world, there is a perfect movie for each of us. We just have to keep looking for it. Until next time, take care of yourselves and your loved ones. And don't ever watch "Ringmaster". | 0neg
|
I will admit that I have seen maybe five minutes of "Jerry Springer". I don't consider myself a snob, but I really think that I am above watching what's on his show. You should try to elevate yourself above that too.<br /><br />I saw this movie as part of a social studies event I was conducting. I was told that this movie really had little to do with Springer himself, rather it centered on the lives of those who would appear on "Springer." Handled better, this movie might have actually been a fascinating look at how pathetic these people's lives actually are. I will admit, I felt a twinge of empathy for Connie (Molly Hagan). This is all she has in life. How sad that she feels she must go on Jerry's show in order to resolve this.<br /><br />I really feel sorry for Molly Hagan appearing in this. Have you noticed that after this movie, she has mainly been relegated to "B" roles on TV? I will say this about Hagan. She is an extremely beautiful and intelligent woman. I have no doubt that she is very earnest in her acting and she tries to play her roles with a lot of empathy. The problem is that Hagan can't carry a scene on her own. She just doesn't have what it takes to do a lead role. Her best work will always be Angel on "Herman's Head" (a show that was not great, but its heart was in the right place) and when she guested on "Seinfeld" as Sister Roberta. | 0neg
|
Was this movie stupid? Yup. Did this movie depth? Nope. Character development? Nope. Plot twists? Nope. This was simply a movie about a highly-fictionalized Springer show. It shows the lengths that some people will go to get their mugs on TV. Molly Hagan did a great job as Jaime Pressly's mom. Jaime is....well...GORGEOUS! This flick wasn't so much made to be a "breakthrough" movie, rather, it was intended to life in a trailer park (I live in a trailer park and ours is nothing like the one in this movie) where everyone sleeps with everyone else, all the girls get pregnant by different guys, and all the guys drive rusted-out '66 Ford pickups (exaggeration, of course, but that's the picture everyone sees when you mention "trailer park"). Some people over-analyze movies (case-in-point: Star Trek freaks). I watch movies purely for the entertainment value; not to point out that the girl is wearing a different shirt in a different scene (read the "Goofs" bit about Connie's shirt. Could it have been better? Sure. But it was funny as hell. | 0neg
|
OK, people, honestly... this gotta be one of the worst movies about show biz that's ever been made, but I've been laughing myself silly (which may be why I enjoyed it). Basically, it's all about sex, sex and a way to get your own personal 15 minutes of fame. Did I mention that sex was a major issue in this movie? If you have a thing going for bizzzzare characters and easy entertainment, watch this movie when you get the chance (and don't have something better to do). <br /><br />***Attention spoilers!!!*** The funniest thing on the movie was the guy who asked Jerry whether he could marry his goat (!) on the show and flashing his wallet with his love's pictures. A triple A for bad taste and fun! | 0neg
|
To grasp where this 1976 version of A STAR IS BORN is coming from consider this: Its final number is sung by Barbra Streisand in a seven minute and forty second close-up, followed by another two-and-half-minute freeze frame of Ms. Streisand -- striking a Christ-like pose -- behind the closing credits. Over ten uninterrupted minutes of Barbra's distinctive visage dead center, filling the big screen with uncompromising ego. That just might be some sort of cinematic record.<br /><br />Or think about this: The plot of this musical revolves around a love affair between two musical superstars, yet, while Streisand's songs are performed in their entirety -- including the interminable finale -- her costar Kris Kristofferson isn't allowed to complete even one single song he performs. Nor, though she does allow him to contribute a little back up to a couple of her ditties, do they actually sing a duet.<br /><br />Or consider this: Streisand's name appears in the credits at least six times, including taking credit for "musical concepts" and her wardrobe (from her closet) -- and she also allegedly wanted, but failed to get co-directing credit as well. One of her credits was as executive producer, with a producer credit going to her then-boyfriend and former hairdresser, Jon Peters. As such, Streisand controlled the final cut of the film, which explains why it is so obsessed with skewing the film in her direction. What it doesn't explain is how come, given every opportunity to make The Great Diva look good, their efforts only make Streisand look bad. Even though this was one of Streisand's greatest box office hits, it is arguably her worst film and contains her worst performance.<br /><br />Anyway, moving the melodrama from Hollywood to the world of sex-drugs-and-rock'n'roll, Streisand plays Esther Hoffman, a pop singer on the road to stardom, who shares the fast lane for a while with Kristofferson's John Norman Howard, a hard rocker heading for the off ramp to Has-beenville. In the previous incarnations of the story, "Norman Maine" sacrifices his leading man career to help newcomer "Vicky Lester" achieve her success. In the feminist seventies, Streisand & Co. want to make it clear that their heroine owes nothing to a man, so the trajectory is skewed; she'll succeed with or without him and he is pretty much near bottom from scene one; he's a burden she must endure in the name of love. As such, there is an obvious effort to make the leading lady not just tougher, but almost ruthless, while her paramour comes off as a henpecked twit.<br /><br />Kristofferson schleps through the film with a credible indifference to the material; making little attempt to give much of a performance, and oddly it serves his aimless, listless character well. Streisand, on the other hand, exhibits not one moment of honesty in her entire time on screen. Everything she does seems, if not too rehearsed, at least too controlled. Even her apparent ad libs seem awkwardly premeditated and her moments of supposed hysteria coldly mechanical. The two have no chemistry, making the central love affair totally unbelievable. You might presume that his character sees in her a symbol of his fading youth and innocence, though at age 34, Streisand doesn't seem particularly young or naive. The only conceivable attraction he might offer to her is that she can exploit him as a faster route to stardom. And, indeed, had the film had the guts to actually play the material that way, to make Streisand's character openly play an exploitive villain, the film might have had a spark and maybe a reason to exist.<br /><br />But I guess the filmmakers actually see Esther as a sympathetic victim; they don't seem to be aware just how cold-blooded and self absorbed she is. But sensitivity is not one of the film's strong points: note the petty joke of giving Barbra two African American back up singers just so the film can indulge in the lame racism of calling the trio The Oreos. And the film makes a big deal of pointing out that Esther retains her ethnic identity by using her given name of Hoffman, yet the filmmakers have changed the character's name of the previous films from "Esther Blodgett" so that Streisand won't be burdened with a name that is too Jewish or too unattractive. So much for ethnic pride.<br /><br />The backstage back stabbing and backbiting that proceeded the film's release is near legendary, so the fact that the film ended up looking so polished is remarkable. Nominal director Frank Pierson seems to have delivered the raw material for a good movie, with considerable help from ace cinematographer Robert Surtees. And the film did serve its purpose, producing a soundtrack album of decent pop tunes (including the Oscar-winning "Evergreen" by Paul Williams and Streisand). But overall the film turned out to be the one thing Streisand reportedly claimed she didn't want it to be, a vanity project. | 0neg
|
So I had heard from a few people that this film had brought them to tears in the theater. As I watched it for the first time I was expecting another romantic, tear-jerking Barbra Streisand film; Something like The Way We Were. I was certainly wrong. The chemistry between the two main characters, Esther Hoffman and her John Howard, was nonexistent, making it impossible to get attached to the characters. There wasn't anything romantic about it. Streisand's character fell for an alcoholic drug addict who couldn't sing a single note without making me want to hit the fast-forward button. At one point her character finds her husband in bed with another woman and she forgives him about five minutes later. There's nothing romantic about a deadbeat rock star and a woman who can't seem to realize it until he actually dies. Parts of the movie seemed to drag on and on, and I kept asking myself when it was going to end.<br /><br />The death of John Howard was completely predictable. There was totally obvious foreshadowing of his reckless behavior early on in the movie, and when he died I felt no emotion whatsoever. It wasn't a tragic accident, it was him basically being an idiot. Not to mention throughout the movie I was distracted by his hideous beard.<br /><br />The only parts of this movie worth seeing are the Streisand songs. The ending of the movie when she sings "With One More Look At You/Watch Closely Now" was my reason for giving this film a whopping 3/10. Those 7 minutes were the only part of the movie I actually felt an emotion other than irritation and anger. | 0neg
|
Really an amazing pile of pap! <br /><br />A predictable, slow moving, soul destroying, mind numbing movie to which, slitting your own wrists with a rusty bread knife seems... well, almost necessary.<br /><br />The acting is over done for the thin dialogue, every scene is at least twice as long as it needs to be, the intricate details of how this career is collapsing or that career is rising is just far too dreary and mundane for words. The music would be good if you didn't have to sit through the movie, but really, three good songs is not enough reward for the effort required to watch the movie.<br /><br />Watching this film I prayed to God for narcolepsy or for someone to shoot me.<br /><br />Never, ever, ever again. | 0neg
|
Rock star John Norman Howard (Kris Kristofferson) turns lounge singer Esther Hoffman (Barbra Streisand) into an overnight singing star. Esther's star rises while John's goes into decline, thanks to drugs and alcohol. After about two hours, John does the self-destructive-red-converible-160-MPH-crack-up-on-a-desert-highway thing. The best thing about this movie is the music, especially the song, "Evergreen." Barbra Streisand sings well, but you can't take her seriously as an up-and-coming star, when she is *already* a star. The very first time she appears, singing in a back alley bar, she looks like an established singing star who is slumming for the night, not like a struggling unknown who is trying to launch her singing career. She is too confident, too professional. Her apartment looks like a page out of "Apartment Living," not some hole-in-the-wall apartment where a real struggling singer would live.<br /><br />Kris Kristofferson handles the self-centered, out-of-control rock star role like...well, like a singer who is trying to be an actor but doesn't have much acting talent. The direction is tepid, the story is slow and dull.<br /><br />But the worst thing about this movie is not the acting, or the lame direction, or the slow story. It's the hair! After staring at Kristofferson's and Streisand's awful 70's hairdos for 2+ hours, your eyes hurt. | 0neg
|
This is a horrid disaster of a film. From beginning to end, it's filled with bad acting and even worse direction and editing. The only redeeming parts of the film are a few numbers by Streisand, because the Kristofferson parts are impossible to watch or listen to. The main problem of this film is that we never see Kristofferson's character at his peak or Streisand's character struggling. The first should be seen in decline and the second rising. The final Streisand number _could have been_ one of the greatest finales in film, if it was directed and edited properly. The single framed shot of her face for the duration of the song was a terrible mistake. Had the band, audience and wide shots of the stage been shown, this number could have been dynamic and interesting. This film must have been directed and edited by an NYU film school dropout. The only thing worse may be the wretched screenplay. The final musical number is the only redeeming part of this film, and even that is botched completely by misguided technical decisions. | 0neg
|
This film is a huge steaming pile. <br /><br />I have no idea why anyone felt that the Garland/Mason version needed to be redone, nor why Striesand would have been a first choice to star.<br /><br />For that matter, I have no idea why our people (Gay Americans) tend largely to regard Striesand as some kind of treasure. At least in my opinion, she had peaked professionally with with Funny Girl, and Bogdanovich's What's Up Doc. <br /><br />Do yourself a favor and rent the Judy classic, or even the original (a fine film in its own right), but please, Please, PLEASE skip this stinkpot! | 0neg
|
Kris Kristofferson, at his drugged-out peak in the mid-70s, finds himself barely able to squeeze on to the screen alongside La Streisand's humongous ego and discount-store feminism.<br /><br />None of the characters are really likable; I was _so_ glad when Kristofferson's Ferrari went over that hill and crashed.<br /><br />If you want to see a good movie about rock and roll stardom, try _The Buddy Holly Story_ (made only about a year and a half after this dreck). | 0neg
|
I never saw the original 1954 version with Judy Garland, so have no means of comparison. Also, it's been some years, but I found this tale neither gripping nor its romance captivating. The movie tells the story of two lovers whose musical careers are headed in opposite directions. John Norman Howard is a worn out, disillusioned rock star on the decline, embarking upon a romance with a fresh, talented new singing sensation, Esther Hoffman. Her dramatic success only serves to emphasize his decline.<br /><br />The lead actors, Kris Kristofferson and Barbra Streisand, are adequate in their roles, but neither their chemistry nor the plot left much of a mark with me. The film is noteworthy to me for only one aspect, Streisand's beautiful rendition of the Oscar winning song 'Evergreen'. She truly has a powerful and magnificent voice. | 0neg
|
This movie is NOT the same as the 1954 version with Judy Garland and James Mason, and that is a shame because the 1954 version is, in my opinion, much better. I am not denying Barbra Streisand's talent at all. She is a good actress and brilliant singer. I am not acquainted with Kris Kristofferson's other work and therefore I can't pass judgment on it. However, this movie leaves much to be desired. It is paced slowly, it has gratuitous nudity and foul language, and can be very difficult to sit through.<br /><br />However, I am not a big fan of rock music, so it's only natural that I would like the Judy Garland version better. See the 1976 film with Barbra and Kris, and judge for yourself. | 0neg
|
There are two points I need to make clear right at the beginning. First of all we all know what this year's Oscar's were REALLY all about this year. It was the Academy's way of showing people that they are no racist,and never have been. They wanted to clear all preconceived notions about themselves. Secondly, it's kinda pointless to make remarks about the show, because really, what difference will it make? But, it's fun to write about it. This is the year I became fed-up with the Oscar's! I will never watch the show again. Every year they do something wrong. Before Crowe wins for "Gladaitor" when they real winner should of been Ralph Fiennes for "Sunshine". If you haven't seen this movie yet, watch it and you'll agree. "Eyes Wide Shut" when released receieved no nominations. And as far as this year goes, well, the bad choices were all over the place! Baz Lurhmann gets no "Best Director" nomination! Are you joking!! "A Beautiful Mind" is up for "Best Make-up"???? "Training Day" gets nominated?? The movie was awful, and it seemed like Washington didn't even turn in a performance, all he proved was, he knows how to use four letter words! That's what h won the award for! Take away the language and I bet he was almost playing himself! I liked "Gosford Park", I really did, but why 7 nominations? And how on Earth could they not give it too Altman! I mean, c'mon, if there just giving the award to people to clear up any bad feelings, what about Altman? The man has been in the public's eye for 32 years now and no Oscar! There were many, many things that bothered me about this year's Oscar's, but, I'll live with it, as long as I never have to watch another show again! The highpoint ( and the ONLY one) of the show was when Woody Allen made his first appearance ever to the award show. That will go down as one of the greatest moments in he history of the show. | 0neg
|
It doesn't even merit a review, other than as a warning to potential viewers. It's a somewhat generic ghost story about an actress haunting a studio during the filming of a WWII period drama. There's no fear involved, no suspense whatsoever, nor any surprises. One shocking moment that looks a bit too silly to be shocking. The visual style is very flat and dull, although there is some really nice editing once in a while. The story never comes together, and the films is really just a total bust. 4/10. | 0neg
|
I caught this film at the Edinburgh Film Festival. I hadn't heard much about it; only that it was a tightly-paced thriller, shot digitally on a very low budget. I was hoping to catch the next big Brit-Flick. But I have to say, I was severely disappointed. "This Is Not A Love Song" follows two criminals, who, after accidentally shooting and killing a farmer's young daughter, become embroiled in a deadly game of cat and mouse when the locals decide to take matters into their own hands and hunt them down.<br /><br />The real problem is that this is yet another example of style over substance in a British film. The camera angles and editing are completely at odds with the story, as are the over the top performances, and the appalling use of slow motion, which only serves to make the whole thing look like an expensive home video. There are repeated attempts to make the film look edgy and gritty, which instead come over as hilarious and over the top(Cue a pathetic, obligatory drug scene, and countless, pointless camera zooms). No amount of cliche's such as this can disguise the fact that this is a pretty bad story.<br /><br />We've seen this kind of thing many times before, and made a hundred times better, particularly in John Boorman's masterful "Deliverance." But while in the latter film, we actually cared about the characters, in this film, I found myself just wanting them to be hunted down and killed as quickly as possible. Even this wouldn't have been so bad if their adversaries had been frightening or worthwhile, but instead, are merely a collection of stereotypical, inbred-looking countryfolk. Again, another offensive, overused cliche' coming to the fore. Surely there are some nice people in the country, filmmakers?<br /><br />In its defense, "This Is Not A Love Song" does contain a couple of good, suspenseful moments, but it's hard to see this film doing anything other than going straight to video, or, at a push, getting a very limited cinema release. It's not a patch on last year's Low-Budget hunted in the hills movie, "Dog soldiers". Maybe British Cinema could actually get kick-started again if the right money stopped going to the wrong people. | 0neg
|
I remember rather enjoying this a few years back but coming to it again, I wonder why. I guess it always looks good and the girls do rather well but the men do rather let the side down. Why oh why in so many English films about sex do we have to have such inept men along side the pretty girls? What is more this begins predictably enough as a sex farce similar in vein to the Confessions films but about a third of the way through (whilst we are beginning to enjoy the presence of the lovely Me Me Lai) the film asks us to start taking it seriously. Not only that but the central rock club and cannabis sequences are very forced and just look stilted. In short this is neither as innocently silly or as intelligently serious as it seems to intend. Richard O'Sullivan maybe, as such a central figure, could have helped but I reckon this to be one of his worst performances. Just worth it for the ladies. | 0neg
|
The "saucy" misadventures of four au pairs who arrive in London on the same day in the early 1970s. There's a Swedish girl, a Danish, a German and a Chinese. The story contrives to get the clothes off all of them, involve them in some Carry On-type humour and couple them with various misfits from the British film and TV culture of the time, including Man About the House star Richard O'Sullivan, future Coronation Street rogue Johnny Briggs and horror film stalwart Ferdy Mayne (playing a sheik). There's a pretty risqué amount of female nudity on display, for those who like that kind of thing (but obviously nothing hardcore).<br /><br />Most of the film is pretty thin and inconsequential; the girls are stereotypes, and German Anita especially suffers from some kind of infantalising disorder - she's a moron obsessed with colour TV who acts like a kind of uninhibited child & dresses to deliberately show her private parts; in another more serious film, she would be a psychiatric case. The most interesting section of the film involves the Swedish girl being taken to a club in London where some dodgy types are still trying to swing, being seduced by a middle-aged rocker, losing her virginity and realising that the scene is not for her. These sequences have some energy in them and point to a more intriguing film than we've ended up with, in which promiscuity and the dregs of the music business and upper classes live soulless and seedy lives (there's a fine turn by John Standing as an impotent public school roué). The strangest of the stories has the Chinese girl (future cannibal film veteran Me Me Lay) getting off with her childish piano prodigy employer, falling mutually in love with and then leaving in the middle of the night for no good reason at all, except some orientalist notion that "Chinese birds are inscrutable, ain't they?!" The film is pretty demeaning to its women characters and there's a smattering of homophobia in the dialogue and one of the characterisations. The end is striking, as Mayne's sheik for no earthly reason (except they have to end the film somehow) whisks all of the girls away to his Arab kingdom for what looks to all the world like a future in the white slave trade, which they are all delighted about.<br /><br />Stuff and nonsense for the most part then, but directed with a fair amount of skill by veteran Val Guest, which puts it as a piece of film-making a notch above most of the 70s Brit sexploitation flicks. | 0neg
|
The plot has already been described by other reviewers, so I will simply add that my reason for wanting to see this film was to see Gabrielle Drake in all her undoubted glory.<br /><br />Miss Drake has to be one of the sexiest, prettiest examples of "posh totty" to have been committed to celluloid. Of her era and ilk, only the equally exquisite Jane Asher comes close. What was it about actresses with musical brothers? (Nick Drake and Peter Asher) For those who like me have admired Gabrielle, her scenes in this movie will not disappoint. She has a magnificent figure and none of it is left to the imagination here.<br /><br />As a whole, the movie is very poor and being of its time, very cheaply made. The song that covers the opening credits seems to go on forever and is appalling. | 0neg
|
The video quality is awful. The sound quality is pathetic. The acting is horrific. The dialog is painful. The lighting is dismal. The editing is laughable. I could go on, but it would be pointless. Snitch'd is a third rate amateur video being passed off as a feature film. This one is best left to collect dust in the video store bargain bin. | 0neg
|
I got this DVD from a friend, who got it from someone else (and that probably keeps going on..) Even the cover of the DVD looks cheap, as is the entire movie. Gunshots and fist fights with delayed sound effects, some of the worst actors I´ve seen in my life, a very simple plot, it made me laugh ´till my stomach hurt! With very few financial resources, I must admit it looked pretty professional. Seen as a movie, it was one of the 13 in a dozen wannabe gangsta flicks nobody´s waiting for. So: if you´re tired and want a cheap laugh, see this movie. If not, throw it out of the window. | 0neg
|
I don't really know where to start. The acting in this movie was really terrible, I can't remember seeing so many 'actors' in one film that weren't able to act. Not only the acting was bad, the characters were incredibly stupid as well.<br /><br />Then there's the action. I believe that even children know that when someone gets shot, there's blood involved. But when someone gets shot in Snitch'd for ten (!!) times, there's no blood at all. Well, I guess that's just me.<br /><br />To make a long story short (because believe me, I can go on for hours about this film), this is without a doubt the worst film I ever saw. This film should be number 1 in the bottom 100 without a doubt. | 0neg
|
I bought this movie and after I watched it I decided that I did not care for it. The acting was BAD. Was the principal a robot? He had no personality and his facial expression didn't change through the whole movie. At times the voices didn't match up. People talking and their lips didn't even move. | 0neg
|
I bought this DVD for £1 and now i realise why. The acting was the worst I've seen in a long time. The lighting and sound are shoddy at best. The plot makes little sense even when sober (WARNING: I don't advise watching this film when sober.) This film feels like you're watching the home movie of someone who doesn't get out much. It really is a shame that all the very little money spent on this project went to such a waste, I look forward to seeing if any of those envoled still have a career, other than eva longoria who is the only "star" of this film that was apparently not hit with the bad acting stick. I'm sorry that none of this criticism seems constructive but I will say one thing to James Cahill, don't try it again. In the words of squirlyem "Its severely lacking in the good department". | 0neg
|
WORST MOVIE EVER!!!! Can't believe I wasted 90min of my life watching this crap. The only reason I didn't turn it off was I wanted to see the Gangster dude on the cover and he wasn't even in it talk about False advertising. The people that gave this movie a ten are either Dumb,Stupid or CAST MEMBERS or friends of CAST MEMBERS.<br /><br />I gave it a solid 2 because no one else did<br /><br />I have to write more and I don't even want to. wasting my time talking about this rubbish. Please don't watch it and if you did then vote so this movie can go where it belongs. bottom 100 movies. i can't even tell you how bad it really is. think the worst movie ever that you've seen then times that be ten and thats this movie. It sucked!! If you just think I'm being bitter then watch it I dare You!! This movie should be used to torture war criminals or Terriosts. If they Watch this even two times and they'll be spilling the beans and begging for MERCY!! | 0neg
|
I watched this....let me rephrase...suffered through this because I'm a fan of Eva's. I don't think this is a flick she'll put on the back of her head shot photos. I like gangsta flix but this wasn't even close. The budget couldn't have been more than a few hundred dollars, and that money was probably spent on the caterer.<br /><br />The premise was interesting, but the first victim died before you get the chance to care about her or not.<br /><br />I won't bother saying who did what and how, because it isn't worth the effort. I'm only glad that because of my monthly rental plan at the local video store that I didn't have to actually pay for this garbage.<br /><br />OH!! Before you flame on me, I love movies, I thought a lotta flix were good that some of you have jammed, so for me to jam this tells you all you need to know. | 0neg
|
All I can say after watching Snitch'd is please stop Mr. Cahill. It is painfully clear you have no understanding of what you make movies about. If you insist on making movies about gangsters I urge you to do research. It's comical to watch movies with absurd gangbangers that even sound more absurd when they speak.<br /><br />I laughed at the part when Mr. Cahill goes to a school with only 3 students and proceeds to kick their butts in kung fu fashion. This movie was tough as an after school special. Who had the idea to have hats worn that say where a particular gangbanger was from?. I suspect real gangbangers do not wear hats claiming there gang. That would be stupid considering new laws that add length to a prison term if a person is gang related. <br /><br />Snitch'd is the WORST gangbanger movie ever made. | 0neg
|
If you want to see a retarded homosexual Karate expert beat up a bunch of try hard wannabe Mexican gangsters repeatedly for an hr, then this is the film for you. if not then choose another DVD from the 20c bin which is the only place this film belongs. the acting was so horrible that i had to force myself to watch it to the end. The cover makes it look so cool but its just another cheap, b grade gangster film along the lines of 2 g's and a key, bloody streetz and menace. I would not buy or rent this film unless you are planing to get stoned and plot , editing and acting really don't matter to you. it is truly the worst film in the history of humanity!!! | 0neg
|
Maybe this isn't fair, because I only made it about halfway through the movie. One of the few movies I have actually not been able to watch due to lameness.<br /><br />The acting is terrible, the camera work is terrible, the plot is ridiculous and the whole movie is just unrealistic and cheesy. For example - during a coke deal, the coke is just kept loose in a briefcase - I'm no expert, but I think people generally put it in a bag.<br /><br />They use the same stupid sound effect whenever a punch is thrown (it's that over the top 'crunching' sound" and they use toy guns with dubbed in sound effects.<br /><br />Worst movie ever. | 0neg
|
This movie is weak ,The box-cover says East LA's toughest gang and it is really Santa Ana's , James Cahill acts like a closet queen taking down all the tough guys in the tough Chlo gang . It is fake , boring , senseless and whack , I tried to get my money back from the video store this movie was so bad . It was also on the homo-erotic tip far from what the video-box proclaims . James Cahill should act in Gay Porno .James is in every scene , he cannot act to save his life . The film features Eva Longoria who is hot but James can't even score with her !!!!!!!!! I felt at times I was watching Gay Porn and was turned - off by the whole film . James clearly want's to be with men but rather then submit to his gay desires he beats up gang members over and over and over again . His martial Arts skills are minimal at best , Some real gang members would take him and his weak skills and rip him a new one . | 0neg
|
Every once in a while , someone out of the blue looks at me a little sideways and asks "What's with SNITCH'D" ? I know immediately they have a case of barely-hidden amusement + horror. You see, I was the cinematographer on the film.<br /><br />Let me clarify some points regarding this "interesting life experience".<br /><br />Originally, SNITCH'D was called ONE HARD HIT. I met James Cahill in July of 1999, a day after I wrapped TRIANGLE SQUARE, a great little 35mm feature that like so many indie features of the era never got distribution despite festival accolades...it fell eternal victim to the fine print of SAG's notorious Experimental Feature contract. But I digress...<br /><br />I though I was on a roll, and when James asked me to shoot his little gangster flick in 16mm with a shooting budget of about $25,000, not wanting to break pace, I took it. After all, CLERKS, EL MARIACHI... I too believed the myth back then.<br /><br />Let's just chalk it up as "film school" for many involved, myself included. SNITCH'D was shot over two weeks in August, 1999, in Aliso Viejo and Santa Ana, CA. Cahill taught Drama at a High School in the latter city ( yes, he is a Drama and English teacher...consider THAT while watching the film, or even observing the use of apostrophe in title ), hence the locations and cast.<br /><br />Of note in his cast were the only known dramatic appearance of L.A.'s Channel 2 Morning News weather girl Vera Jimenez, and of greater impact, the debut of Eva Longoria, who had just arrived in Hollywood and was as eager as I to get a film under her belt. I must say her professional dedication, focus and "let's do this" attitude kept me inspired and was a foreshadow of her stardom-yet-to-come. <br /><br />SNITCH'D suffered from poor optics, few lights or electricity, several boom operators du jour, and delivery of an uncorrected offline for duplication. None of that overshadows the actual content, which speaks for itself.<br /><br />Anyway, by 2003, the film was sold to distributors ( at a net loss, I understand ) who inexplicably had no photos of Eva on the box ( by then she was a rising, working name ) but who did manage to obtain a clear photo of what appears to be an authentic Latino gangster to lend credibility to SNITCH'D. Since Cahill's other passion is antiquarian book dealing, it appears to confirm he believes you can, in fact, judge a book by it's cover... as so many have picked up this DVD based on it's sleeve. ----------------- One year later, Eva, now on a soap, and I met James for one day to shoot a simple short film he had concocted, SPLIT SECOND, which I think has never seen any play despite festival intent. <br /><br />6 years later, I was hired to shoot another Cahill film titled JUAREZ, Mexico. I though he had worked out the process; my participation was contingent on casting, script and crew control, and the resultant film actually looked promising in dailies, for what it was... a cheap detective story surrounding the mass murders of girls in Juarez; despite claims here and elsewhere, the film has NEVER appeared in any festival or venue, although Cahill has repeatedly claimed the film has distribution and was simply awaiting release to coincide with the DVD release of two studio pictures on the same subject, VIRGIN OF JUAREZ and BORDER TOWN. | 0neg
|
DD films were damn corny, damn stupid and had a plot which seemed wafer thin but those days they was a plot at least<br /><br />This film isn't just a comedy but a mix of melodrama, romance everything<br /><br />Every drama scene is blown out of proportion<br /><br />The comedy is funny but corny too Yet the film keeps you entertained, those days Govinda films were loud, crass yet they had some funny moments people enjoyed<br /><br />David Dhawan does a okay job Music is okay<br /><br />Govinda acts well in comedy and drama Karisma is decent in parts and annoys in parts Kader is as usual Gulshan, Prem Chopra are typecast Shakti is hilarious | 0neg
|
Honestly I can't understand why this movie rates so well here, nor why Bakshi himself thought it was his finest film. I'm a huge fan of Bakshi's earlier work - particularly 'Heavy Traffic' and 'Wizards', but frankly 'Wizards' (1977) was the last good film he made. After that he turned to the mainstream, beginning with the diabolical 'Lord of the Rings' and then knuckling down with sword and sorcery heavyweight Frank Frazetta, for 'Fire and Ice'.<br /><br />What can I say? The story is puerile, the animation is TV quality - I insist that it's considerably worse than his 70's stuff - and whereas 'Wizards' had real imagination, quirkiness, some gorgeous background art, and an underground, adult sensibility, 'Fire and Ice' is just designed for 14 year old boys, and has the intellectual clout of Robinson Crusoe on Mars.<br /><br />Yes, if you liked the Gor books, you might like this. In my view though, this was just another blip in the slide in quality after 'Wizards' from which Bakshi never recovered (though he's done some decent TV stuff fairly recently)<br /><br />4.5 out of 10 | 0neg
|
I first saw this when I was around 7. I remembered what I believed to be a vague outline of what took place. Turns out now, 15 years later, that I remembered everything with great accuracy because it seems the writers never got beyond making an outline to the story. There is no plot to this movie/cartoon. There is no character development, no back story, no character arcs, nothing. The good guys do things because they are good, while the bad guys do things solely because they are bad. One unintentionally hilarious part is when someone who you would think to be important dies and nobody cares in the least. They just shrug their shoulders and move on. There's barely any dialogue either. If you cut out the fight scenes and the running scenes, you lose 70% of the movie.<br /><br />Watch this because you want to see some good animation and for no other reason. Or if you like to look at scantily clad hot cartoon chicks (or scantily clad hot cartoon dudes). | 0neg
|
Trite, clichéd dialog and plotting (the same kind of stuff we saw all through the 1980s fantasy movies), hokey music, and a paint-by-numbers characters knocks this out of the running for all but the most hardcore fans.<br /><br />What saves this film from the junk heap is the beautiful crutch of Bakshi's work, the rotoscoping, and the fact that Frank Frazetta taught the animators how to draw like him. This is Frazetta...in motion. The violence is spectacular and the art direction and animation are unlike any other sword & sorcery movie of the period.<br /><br />I like to watch this with the sound off, playing the soundtrack to the first Conan movie instead. | 0neg
|
Carlo Verdone once managed to combine superb comedy with smart and subtle social analysis and criticism.<br /><br />Then something happened, and he turned into just another dull "holier-than-thou" director.<br /><br />Il Mio Miglior Nemico can more or less be summarized in one line "working class = kind and warm, while upper-class = snob and devious. But love wins in the end".<br /><br />Such a trite clichè for such a smart director.<br /><br />There isn't really too much to talk about in the movie. Every character is a walking stereotype: the self-made-man who forgets his roots but who'll become "good" again, the scorned wife, the rebellious rich girl who falls for the honest-but-poor guy... Acting is barely average.<br /><br />Severely disappointing under every aspect. | 0neg
|
I'm sorry, but this may have been scary in 1978 when it came out, but in modern times it just doesn't hold up. The only interesting scene in the entire movie is the opening scene where Michael kills his sister, Judith, wearing his Halloween mask. The most startling moment in the whole film is when his parents rip the mask off to see their son killed their daughter. The film goes downhill from there and doesn't pick up until the last fifteen minutes, but by then it's too late, we the audience have lost all interest in the story. There is barely any character development, and people always rave about Laurie being such an exceptional heroine, when there really isn't much to her. I'm sorry to disagree with everyone terrified by this movie, but if you want a great horror movie go watch The Shining or Rosemary's Baby. Those are the two best horror films ever made. Halloween is certainly not in their ranks. I can't believe Roger Ebert gave it four stars, for there is no way this film could ever deserve such a high rating. | 0neg
|
What the hell is in your minds ? This film sucks ! Each minute I was getting more and more bored. I strove to watch the end because I hope something at least would at last happen ! But instead of that, I got amazed how dull the end was treated... What is this story about this bloody "bogeyman" ? How comes he doesn't die ? He is a bloody human being for God's sake ! A mere boy that killed his silly sister 15 years ago. Then what ? His stay on a psychiatric hospital made him immortal ? This film a fascinatingly stupid... It's a must of silliness. I'm gonna resell it right now to some silly guy who will understand this silly film. | 0neg
|
Perhaps one of the most overrated so-called horror classics ever made, Halloween does feature the memorable Michael Myers and some great acting by Jamie Lee Curtis.<br /><br />However, its rewatchability factor is very close to zero, as there is an unforgivable amount of time spent on dullness/culmination to the actual events.<br /><br />This is the sort of movie you can walk away from to microwave popcorn and not miss anything at all.<br /><br />How it spawned so many sequels, I will never comprehend.<br /><br />Thank God Rob Zombie is remaking this. And generally, I hate remakes.<br /><br />Surely he will more than compensate for all the random time-filling gaps with some quirky points of interest that the original severely lacks.<br /><br />This is a movie we feel we have to like, much like the way we're taught that we SHOULD enjoy Dickens.<br /><br />Don't assume this is a classic. | 0neg
|
I do admit that my review is from a 2006 point of view, nearly 30 years after the making of this movie and at the time of its conception, it may have been a brilliant horror/thriller movie.<br /><br />Beginning on Halloween night 1968, 6 year old Michael commits the brutal murder of his 18 year old sister. Michael is committed to a mental institution and 15 years later escapes and returns to his home town to murder again.<br /><br />From this point it is clear that the movie will follow a basic and rudimentary path that is highly predictable. The beginning of every scene is easily predictable in the way it will end whilst the music for each scene containing Michael (the murderer) is exactly the same throughout the movie, thus alerting the viewer to the likely events to follow.<br /><br />For the horror/thriller enthusiast, there is a severe lack of blood/gore compared to modern day films although I am not akin to the amount that is displayed in this day and age. A happier medium could have been found.<br /><br />From a half hour into the movie, not one scene is unexpected. The acting for a horror/thriller film is fairly typical of the era and thus lacks any punch for the modern day enthusiast.<br /><br />A positive for the film is its lingering camera shots and dark lighting which creates a frightening atmosphere. A second positive would be the character of Michael's doctor, who provides clues to the probability of where the story may lead.<br /><br />However, it is clear that the star, in Jamie-Lee Curtis, is in the infancy stages of her acting career and thus fails to provide a truly frightened central victim.<br /><br />It is hard for me to rate this film as it was in its day, but from other horror/thriller films of indeed the 80s and to a lesser extent, the 90s, it falls far short of a truly great horror/thriller film.<br /><br />I suggest you move on and find a classic from the 80s. Cheers! | 0neg
|
As the faux-Russian scientist says two-thirds of the way into the movie, "I came for the science." This pretty much sums up the reason I watched this movie - anything that involves a half-man, half-hammerhead shark definitely deserves a serious empirical investigation on the part of an impartial aspiring scientist. Or, as they say in the biz, my girlfriend's brother had the remote and the rest is history. To say that the special effects were bad would be a disservice to the field of special effects. This is 2005, it is not that hard to film a car scene without a cheesy bluescreen background. Yeah, this was charming and state of the art when Hitchcock was filming "The Birds" but in 2005 it just looks low budget. Spare me the cheap attempt at Sci-Fi and do me the service of actually making an attempt at the willing suspension of disbelief.<br /><br />However, having seriously defamed the overall concept of this film, let me tell you again that, as sad as it may sound, this is probably worth your time. If nothing else, it is a tour de force of bad Sci-Fi - worth the education for the new movie buff and certainly worthy of a refresher course for those who have seen a few movies in their day.<br /><br />The crazy hunchback mad scientist with a hammerhead transceiver who thinks it is a good idea to spoon canfuls of blood into the nearby water makes me question not only the intelligence of mankind, but also the ability of "B" movie writers to come up with remotely plausible plot lines.<br /><br />This film also pretty much fulfills one of my longtime bad movie contentions - bad guys always wear sunglasses.<br /><br />If this weren't 2005, I would be deadset on the fact this film was some sort of insanely poor metaphor for the Cold War. I mean, you might as well have Khan on the bridge of a Klingon Bird of Prey inserting leaches into Chekhov's ear.<br /><br />One of the most moving lines of the movie is when the chick without the bra insists that the Charlton Heston lookalike, "wait for Tom" as he is trying to lift the escape helicopter off the ground. The thing is, Tom is wasting the bad sunglass guys with his never-ending banana clip attached to his Kalashnikov, or AK-47, in layman's terms.<br /><br />As the mad scientist says near the end of the film, "my goal is to evolve the human species" - suffice it to say that this movie contributed only to a devolution of humankind. The faint Freudian references uttered by the mad scientist as he prepping the female protagonist to be mated with a hammerhead shark are a simple reminder that even in the worst of science fiction we can all find something to laugh about. | 0neg
|
I am a lover of B movies, give me a genetically mutated bat and I am in heaven. These movies are good for making you stop thinking of everything else going on in your world. Even a stupid B movie will usually make me laugh and I will still consider it a good thing. Then there was Hammerhead, which was so awful I had to register with IMDb so I could warn others. First there was the science of creating the shark-man, which the movie barely touched on. In order to keep the viewers interested they just made sure there was blood every few minutes. During one attack scene the camera moved off of the attack but you saw what was apparently a bucket of blood being thrown by a stagehand to let you know that the attack was bloody and the person was probably dead (what fabulous special effects). Back to the science, I thought it was very interesting that the female test subjects were held naked and the testing equipment required that they be monitored through their breast tissue. Anyway this movie had poor plot development, terrible story, and I'm sorry to say pretty bad acting. Not even William Forsythe, Hunter Tylo or Jeffrey Combs could save this stinker. | 0neg
|
This is a sad movie about this woman who thought her ex who she loved so much was probably dead, but really his scientist dad had just put a spell on him to turn him into this really cute shark-guy. Kind of like in Beauty and the Beast. It could probably use a ballroom dance scene and maybe some singing candlesticks, but there are some pretty gross plants instead. They make this one girl really itchy, so she lets herself get eaten by the shark-guy instead of scratching through the whole movie. The scientist guy is a good dad who tries to reunite his fishy shark son with the woman he was engaged to, he even arranges for them to have private time for s-e-x, but the woman in this is a really shallow snob and thinks the shark-guy is an ugly, icky monster and wants nothing to do with him. She gave up on love! Just because he was a shark! I thought it was pretty sad how all she had to do was kiss him and he'd turn back to normal and they'd live happily ever after, but it's not that kind of movie. | 0neg
|
this movie wasn't absolutely atrocious, but it was pretty bad. the acting ACTUALLY was pretty good! jeffrey combs did a pretty darn good job as the mad scientist, which is sort of his specialty if you don't know such things :D. bill forsythe .. well, i'm not EXACTLY sure why he was in this film. he's way too good for this kinda stuff, and his role wasn't exactly demanding. I rented this on the strength of those two leads, and I wasn't really disappointed. I mean, heck, it's a movie about a half man/half shark. It ain't Shakespeare folks. Other than the plot, which is full of holes, and the poor dialogue, I would like to note that the cinematography also left many things to be desired. there were shots were they were trying to look "cool", but it ended up obscuring the scene or just coming off plain cheezy. they also blew it many times when they had decent dialogue and cut away prematurely before the person could even deliver the line. it was pretty bad. but if you are a jeffrey combs fan, this one is worth checking out. he gives a great performance and does what he can with the character. forsythe ain't bad either, and either is the female lead. heck if i can remember her name though. bottom line, i wouldn't otherwise waste your time. | 0neg
|
Where the hell are all these uncharted islands where prehistoric monsters lurk, evil doctors perform their experiments, madmen hold the ultimate karate championship, and the uber-rich hunt humans for sport? I had no idea there were still so many uncharted islands out there, but if you take into account the number of movies that utilize one of these mysterious islands as a location, you'd have to assume that there are at least 50 of these suckers out there. It always winds up feeling so damned convenient and I immediately deduct points from any movie that uses this hackneyed device. Hammerhead is the story of a mad scientist who is conducting experiments on one of these uncharted islands, so the movie already had a lot to make up for before it even began.<br /><br />The island in this movie used to belong to Dr. Moreau, but has recently been purchased by the Re-Animator himself, Jeffrey Combs. Old Jeffrey is doing some kind of cutting edge stem cell research, which has led him to start working with sharks while searching for a cure for cancer. If that sounds familiar, that's because this is roughly the same basic set-up as the smart shark facility in Deep Blue Sea, not to mention a host of other Nu Image movies. So apparently, Jeffrey's son was dying of cancer which prompted our mad doctor to start experimenting on his progeny. He did some kind of super fancy gene splicing and so forth, turning his son into a shark-man.<br /><br />William Forsythe leads a crew of unknown actors to the island to look into the doctor's experiments. If someone would have given him a sailor's hat, William would have been a dead ringer for the Skipper from Gilligan's Island. In typical Bond Villain fashion, the doctor decides that all of these intruders would make nice chum for his son. Not chums, like buddies... chum, like shark food. So enter shark-boy who starts stalking the Skipper and his cohorts all over the island. They, of course, make half-hearted attempts to escape and are thwarted over and over again while being chased by a guy in a rubber shark-man suit. <br /><br />The movie didn't make up any of the points that it lost for taking place on one of those dastardly deserted islands. It's funny that this movie is called Hammerhead, it made me think of an old joke. Why do you hit yourself in the head with a hammer? Because it feels so good when you stop. That's pretty much how this movie is. The only reason to watch it is because it feels so good when it's over. | 0neg
|
This low budget B horror's plot comes with all the amenities - mad scientist complete with sidekick, malicious corporate greed of pharmaceutical industry, eccentric and extreme genetic engineering, and information technology....can't leave that out.<br /><br />Start with strange sequence of hot looking nameless boaters that foolishly decide to take a dip in the waters near an uncharted island and end up chum for swarming hammerhead sharks.....<br /><br />Cut to weak back story implying the stock decline of a generic pharma corporation which motivates its wicked Shakespeare quoting CEO to entertain an un-solicited offer made by a former employee/scientist that was jilted out of his job as head of research and who also happens to be a nut...of course (total Herbert West wannabe). He is offering up a new stem cell technology that could make tons o' cash...or so it seems...This lures in several employees to his Moreau-ish island (must have been quite an impressive exit package from the company when he was let go for him to afford an island) to validate his scientific findings including the CEO and, co-incidentally, the ex-fiancé of the mad scientist's son now morphed sharkuman (how convenient)....<br /><br />The plan, sort of, is to rekindle lost love between the former nuptials while exacting revenge on the former colleagues for his termination. (Sheez, how can this guy be bitter? He has his own friggen' island after all...).<br /><br />Soon, everyone is on the run (from endless supply of security guards toting heavy weaponry, from mutant plants can there be an uncharted island without man-eating plants?, from sharky son's appetite for carnage, from quack daddy's breeding plans, and from lack of a cell phone signal)...and they all must learn to work together to get off the island alive! <br /><br />Will anyone escape? Will a new species be created? Watch it and find out.<br /><br />There is some entertainment value in this movie, but don't expect much...for the true Combs fan, this is not to be missed. <br /><br />Don't say I didn't warn you. | 0neg
|
Hahahaha!!!!!!Funny-that sums this movie up in one word.What the crap was this "thing",since It might kill me to use the word movie!?!?!I hope the director,writer,and producer didn't mean for this to turn out good,because it sure didn't!!!A scientist turning his son into a hammerhead shark,and the shark killing a bunch of people the scientist invited to the island!!!Oh my Gooooooodddd!!!!I hate this film so much that when I was watching it I laughed at all the serious parts,because they were so corny and unprofessional....and they couldn't have made the shark look more unrealistic,even though this "thing" had a bit larger budget than most low-budget movies.All I have to say is watch this movie expecting to laugh at all the bad acting,and stupid corny dialogue,because if you are expecting a good movie you'll be highly disappointed. | 0neg
|
This was a really funny movie.<br /><br />Every 1 in the movie was trying to be serious that is what made this movie so funny. I mean come on a shark's head on a human body. Can it get any funnier. Good job Sci-Fi keep the comedy movies coming. I never thought movies could get anymore retarded. If they keep it up they will have to rename the sci fie channel the comedy sci fi channel or something like that.<br /><br />I cant wait 4 the next blockbuster movie from sci fi.<br /><br />Ill be ready with a bowl of popcorn and a case of beer or a bottle of liquor and Ill be ready to laugh it up again!!! | 0neg
|
If you read my review of SyFy's "Dinoshark", you know that I can appreciate the low-budget schlock that these made-for-television movies can provide. They're stupid...they're silly...but they're still pretty fun in a "so bad, it's good" kind of way. So, still smacking with guilt for liking (and recommending) the undeniably hokey "Dinoshark", I sat down to watch "Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy", a SyFy Original Movie about a half-man, half-hammerhead monster terrorizing people on an island. With the SyFy Channel's sure-fire recipe for creating B-movie creature features and a cast that includes William Forsythe and Hunter Tylo, how could it possibly go wrong? Well, to my surprise, it actually misses the mark...not by much, but enough to make me not recommend it. Why? Well, first of all, its titular monster, the dreaded hammerhead-human hybrid, takes a backseat to a bunch of faux-military thugs who really become the movie's primary villain. Though the hammerhead does rack up the body count, he (or it or whatever you call the thing) only arrives just before someone is going to be munched upon and leaves directly after. The rest of the movie is filler, pitting our heroes against the aforementioned soldiers. That, to me, is just not as compelling as watching a walking hammerhead eat people! <br /><br />Please Read The Full Review On My Blog: www.horrormoviejournal.blogspot.com | 0neg
|
Jeffrey Combs is an insane scientist whose stem cell research has morphed into a diabolical scheme to create a hybrid hammerhead shark humanoid life form, hoping to breed a brand new species using Hunter Tylo's womb. It won't be easy for Tylo is a tough broad and her boyfriend, William Forsythe, isn't about to give her up without a fight.<br /><br />You see Tylo and Forsythe are two of business executive Arthur Roberts' employees, brilliant minds who meet Combs(..a scientist who once worked for Roberts, and whose vacated position went to Tylo)at his island fortress where he conducts his research and experiments. This island affords him the opportunity to recruit fresh victims for his work and "son". They think it's a professional affair in regards to a breakthrough in stem cell research which could lead to cures for a variety of diseases. Combs' son was dying of kidney cancer when he decided to perform his mad science on him, creating this blood-thirsty, flesh-eating creature which can both swim and walk on dry land(..although, at first the hammerhead could only remain outside for short time periods). Tylo was dating Combs' son, hence the connection besides the two having worked for Roberts, who brings along his trophy wife, Mariya Ignatova. Also accompanying Tylo and Forsythe, Roberts and Ignatova, are their colleagues, Elise Muller and GR Johnson. Combs traps them in a conference room, but they are able to escape onto the island as he sends after them his well paid mercenaries and hammerhead shark son.<br /><br />Like similar sci-fi channel creature features of it's type, Hammerhead:Shark Frenzy has some rather unappealing computer generated effects and the attacks(..where the shark rips apart limbs)are shot in a quick-edit, frenzied camera format where you have a hard time ever seeing any of the ensuing gory carnage. You have this vague notion that a person is being eaten(..ripped to shreds), but the attacks themselves are shot in a very erratic fashion which, truth be told, is rather infuriating. The monster itself is never seen in it's entirety, just momentary glimpses of an eye or a body part being gnawed on as the victim screams out in horror. One thing's for certain, you do see teeth. We do get cgi shots of the hammerhead shark swimming toward the screen, all menacing, ready to feast on flesh. A constant is while(..and after)victims are attacked, we see a great deal of blood and bits of flesh bubbling to the water's surface(..this is really director Michael Oblowitz's main cue as to inform the viewer that those being torn apart are goners).<br /><br />Combs doesn't break new ground as the scientist, but he's always had an ability to convey a quiet madness under this cold-blooded resolve. It's fun seeing Forsythe in a rare clean-cut hero role, very against type as an electronics wiz(..to his credit, he actually pulls it off)who must assume a leadership position when the group faces unprecedented peril. Tylo is also in a very different kind of role, a scientist who can defend herself quite well. Roberts can play the millionaire businessman roles in his sleep, and it's kind of neat seeing him firing off a machine gun at Combs' soldiers(..although, his fate is not pleasant). Mentioning that, it was also really entertaining watching Forythe and Tylo downing Combs' hired goons with confiscated automatic machine guns. As expected, the screenplay allows those who created the murderous fiend to put themselves in unnecessary danger just so that they can pay for their sins..I mean, seriously, would these people knowingly leave themselves so vulnerable to attack after seeing just what damage to the human anatomy it could do? Beautiful exotic setting is quite a nice backdrop. | 0neg
|
Hammerhead is a combination between the mad scientist and killer shark movie genres. In a bit of type-casting, Jeffrey Combs plays the aforementioned mad scientist who develops a human/hammerhead shark creature. Bizarrely, this being is in fact his son, who he has turned into this monster to prevent him dying from cancer. Or something.<br /><br />A group of associates are invited to the scientist's private island. They end up being used as shark bait or shark mate. For some unknown reason the head of IT has been brought along as part of this team. Who knows why? Luckily, he turns out to be a resourceful, if somewhat overweight, Ramboesque hero. I'm working on the assumption that he learnt how to handle an assault rifle as part of his day job working in 1st line support. A normal day for this IT man presumably involves fixing someone's network connection followed by a call to gun down gun-toting evil-doers. Or perhaps a call to fix someone's PC has to be scheduled between physical confrontations with land-based human-shark hybrids? Anyway, he's amazing and saves the day. He even get's the girl.<br /><br />The shark-man is a slightly lame creation but OK, I guess, judging by the effects in general in this film. And the movie moves on at a decent pace. It's complete hokum of course but if you buy a movie called Hammerhead and expect it to be a complex drama about the emotional conflicts experienced by a man turned into a land-based killer fish, then really you have no one to blame but yourself. As it is, there are guns, gore, girls and possibly even an exploding helicopter. It's rubbish but not as bad as some might say. | 0neg
|
A scientist on an island is in deep sorrow about the loss of his son who died of kidney cancer. So he thinks: why not turn my dead son into a hammerhead shark. Well, who wouldn't? It's a little hard to cope with the fact that the hammerhead shark that's killing everybody is constantly being called "Paul". Also, William Forsythe's cast as a MacGyver-kick-ass-savingtheday- kinda hero lacks credibility. On the other hand there are a few hot chicks who make you actually look at the screen while shark Paul bites another one to death. As a matter of fact I find bad b-movies quite amusing. But for my taste it would have been a much better movie if it was made for say 1000000 bucks less. Then it might have been fun. | 0neg
|
This type of plot really does have a lot of potential, but it was butchered here. Honestly, I sensed the cheese element in the beginning, but I thought it would get better after the grotesque birthing. Whoa, I was wrong! So mad scientist makes a monster, wants to brag to his old cronies before he kills them, but of course they escape. After that, it's really bad. I should've counted the times the rubber shark mask peeked out from behind some foliage, but I most likely would have lost count.<br /><br />Pan down to the blood-dripping-from-severed-leg to show us how the shark-man finds the folks. I hate being spoon-fed every aspect of a horror film.<br /><br />Oh, and after being nearly killed by a mutated shark-man and trudging around a jungle-esqe island, there's nothing more cheerful than a middle-aged man reciting Shakespeare...<br /><br />This is one where you'll find yourself rooting for the monster... if you can bear to watch this poor excuse for a flick. | 0neg
|
I love sharks. And mutants. And explosions. Theoretically, with those parameters in mind, HAMMERHEAD: Shark Frenzy should have been the best movie ever.<br /><br />It is not.<br /><br />The monster looks like a villain from Power Rangers, and has approximately the same range of rubbery movement. This might be okay if the makers weren't quite as proud of its design as they seem to be. That is to say, for a guy in a big rubber suit in an action/scifi/horror flick that could benefit from some mystery, the shark gets a lot of screen time. Granted, it is usually shaky and erratic. I guess you're supposed to assume that it's so scary that even the camera guy freaks out.<br /><br />The camera goes to a person about to get eaten, the camera goes to the shark. The camera goes back to the person about to get eaten, only now they are screaming and armless. And so on.<br /><br />The costuming is bad, the acting is poor, and the special effects are sub-par, but the writing is by far the worst. Things happen completely randomly so that more people can be eaten, or so something can explode. Because LET ME TELL YOU, the people who made this movie definitely went in with a more explosions = more better mindset. Characters shoot cars and there is a massive explosion. They shoot helicopters, there is a massive explosion. Barrels, rocks, trees, WHATEVER, they all explode, so much so that the freaking shark even explodes at the end.<br /><br />Speaking of which, I don't care how crazy a person is, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think trying to make a giant half-person half-shark have sex with a woman in order to make freaky shark people babies is a good idea. That is, UNLESS that person is the mad scientist in this movie.<br /><br />The bad thing is, the movie is so random (and at times, boring) that even its badness is not really enough to hold a person's prolonged interest. It might be a good one to MST3K with your friends, but past that, if you happen to catch this bad boy on, do yourself a favor and change the channel. | 0neg
|
Note to all mad scientists everywhere: if you're going to turn your son into a genetically mutated monster, you need to give him a scarier name than "Paul." I don't care if he's a frightening hammerhead shark with a mouthful of dagger-sharp teeth and the ability to ambush people in the water as well as on dry land. Give the kid a more worthy name like, "Thor," "Rock," or "Tiburon." Because even if he eats me up I will probably just sit there laughing, "Ha! Get a load of this!!! Paul the Monster is ripping me to shreds!!!!!" That's the worst part about this movie is, this shark-thing is referred to as "Paul" throughout the entire flick. It makes what could have been a decent, scary horror movie just seem silly. Not that there aren't other campy and contrived parts of "Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy." The scientists spend the entire movie wandering along this island, and all of a sudden one of the girls starts itching madly from walking in the lush forest, and just HAS to pour water on her feet to relive the itching, which of course allows "Paul" to come out of the water and kill her. The one thing SciFI Channel did right in this movie was let the hottie live. But that's a small silver lining in an otherwise disappointing movie. | 0neg
|
This movie makes me think the others I've seen with Combs were an accident. The plot had more holes than I think I've ever seen in a movie purporting to be something more than a "b" movie. The acting was so laughable that not even the memories of Combs' past campy triumphs were enough to save it. Considering the script I have to imagine that there was not enough money in the budget for things like continuity and original ideas. I am thoroughly upset that I paid Blockbuster prices for this trash. The fact that it was made for television was something that would have helped me avoid this atrocity and frankly something that movies this poor should be required to warn you of. Avoid this movie no matter what. | 0neg
|
Horror/Sci-Fi that is interesting as it is laughable. F/X pretty good...for what you manage to see. A made for TV thriller that is not as bad as the worst of them. Jeffrey Coombs plays a brilliant although misguided scientist that tampers with stem cell research and manipulates human DNA with that of a hammerhead shark. The horrifying results give birth to one hell of a killing machine. A group of scientists led by William Forsythe and Hunter Tylo are invited to a remote island to check out the brilliant new experiment. Of course, after laughing and stammering in awe...Coombs' creation, by the way is his own son fused with a hammerhead, is let loose to hunt down one by one his father's colleagues. Revenge is not always rewarding. Also in the cast: Elsie Muller, G.R. Johnson, Arthur Roberts and Velizar Binev. | 0neg
|
i love bad shark movies. i really do. i laugh hysterically at them. and the scifi channel was having a marathon of them, culminating in the premier of their new original picture, hammerhead: shark frenzy. based on the previews, it looked like it was going to be HIGHLY amusing. essentially a remake of benchley's creature, really. it was prefaced by a showing of shark attack 3: megalodon, which is shark movie hilarity at its best. i was in the mood; i was ready to go. bring it on, hammerhead-mad-scientist-man! oh, god, was that movie wrong.<br /><br />wrong, wrong, wrong.<br /><br />sick. twisted. MESSED UP.<br /><br />this is theoretical reproduction at its very worst, my friends. when a drugged-out girl is brought out of suspended animation and strapped to a table screaming her head off because the shark-human hybrid fetus the absolutely insane "scientist" deliberately implanted in her womb wants OUT... Jesus monkeys. that's what i call disturbing.<br /><br />that's really how the plot works: hmmm, thought the mad scientist. my son died of cancer, but i brought him back to life by combining his dna with that of a hammerhead shark, because sharks don't succumb to cancer and further hammerheads reproduce via placenta. oh, look! a perfect amphibious being! i've created the next evolution of the human race! I KNOW! let's make him reproduce! but darned if all those shark genes have't made my son bloodthirsty; instead of raping the hot babes i keep sending into his little jungle paradise, he keeps eating him. but check this out! among the random people who have, by way of some unimportant plot twist, ended up on my research island, is the woman to whom my son was engaged before he died! i bet he'll do HER! all this leads up to an extremely touching and heartfelt reunion: woman: you're going to impregnate me? mad scientist: no. he is. (indicates thrashing shark-person in tank) how sweet.<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. ever. | 0neg
|
I caught "Sorrows Lost" at the New York Film and Video Festival and I guess I had some high hopes for this film. Sadly, this is just another Visual FX calling card. The story is pretty lame. The bad lighting and camera work, along with the less than great editing and music all make the film seem low quality.<br /><br />Is it really too much to ask that FX shorts have better stories and have the rest of the technical production be on par with the FX! You can't just get away with cool FX in shorts anymore, it's been 5 years since "405" made a big splash. At least that short quick, cool and was even a little funny! None of that can be said about "Sorrows Lost." | 0neg
|
A scientist and his girl friend are out driving when his speeding causes a car crash. He escapes unharmed but she is decapitated. He saves her head, brings it to his house and keeps it alive (!!!!). He then proceeds to search out models and strippers for the perfect body for the head. His crippled assistant watches over the head which starts talking and has a telepathic (or telepathetic) link to a deformed monster kept in the closet....<br /><br />As you can see, this is pretty stupid stuff, but I had a certain fondness for it. When I grew up in the late 1970s, a local TV station showed this movie about 20 times each year (no exaggeration). They showed it always on Saturday afternoon TV--uncut. Seeing this on TV back then was great! Explicit blood and gore along with a gruesome monster and sleazy sexploitation--who cares if it was good? Seeing it now I realize how lousy this really is.<br /><br />The acting is perfectly wretched, the production values are nonexistent, the script is pretty dumb and (aside from the still pretty disgusting gore) this is dull stuff. There's also a mild cat fight between two women and the admittedly great monster at the end. Also add in an ending which leaves tons of loose ends. On one hand this is an interesting example of a 1960s exploitation film. On the other its utter trash. Either way, it's not a good movie but is a must-see (for one time only) for horror and gore fans.<br /><br />Also the head's laugh is pretty creepy. Note the end credits which gets the TITLE wrong (calling it "The HEAD That Wouldn't Die")! | 0neg
|
This one hearkens back to the days of the matinée, when kids with nowhere else to hang out took their dates to the balcony after dumping their younger siblings below. It didn't matter what was on the screen - the little kids would sit through it and the big kids would ignore it. The adults, of course, would never see it.<br /><br />But they put it on video, anyway, along with most of the other creaky, low-budget "B" horror flicks of the golden age...of television. This film's inherent and unintentional humor is derived from stale ideology (the "bad girls" harvested to replace poor Jan's crushed body - they had it comin'), overused plot (a mad scientist, trying to play God), violent yet conscientious monster (whose presence in the heretofore-normal-seeming scientist's rural lab is never fully explained), and acting that polarizes at wooden or over-the-top.<br /><br />This is a great party film, assuming your guests enjoy adding dialog and commentary to otherwise abominable cinematic exploits. In fact, should you or your guests prefer more passive entertainment, this film is also available on video in its "Mystery Science Theater 3000" treatment, in which the host and puppets of the cult TV series make the necessary additions for you. | 0neg
|
The Brain (or head) that Wouldn't Die is one of the more thoughtful low budget exploitation films of the early 1960s. It is very difficult to imagine how a script this repulsively sexist could have been written without the intention of self-parody. And the themes that are expressed repeatedly by the female lead, Ginny Leith - a detached head kept alive by machines, I-Vs and clamps - seem to confirm that the film was meant to simultaneously exploit and critique gender stereotypes. Shades of the under-rated Boxing Helena.<br /><br />The genderisms are plentiful, and about as irritating as an army of angry ants. The dialog is hyperbolic, over-dramatic and unbelievable, and the acting is merely OK (but not consistent). Why have I given this film a 4? Because some thought clearly went into it. I am really not sure what point the film was really trying to make, but it seems clear that it strives for an unusually edgy and raw sort of horror (without the blood and guts today's audiences expect).<br /><br />Another unique and interesting aspect of the Brain is that there really are not any heroes in this film, and none of the characters are particularly likable.<br /><br />All considered, this is a fairly painful and disturbing look at early 1960s American pop sexuality, from the viewpoint of a woman kept alive despite her missing body after what should have been a fatal car crash. Her lover is threatening to sew a fresh, high quality, body onto her and force her to continue living with him. She is understandably non-plussed by all of this and forced to befriend a creature who is almost as monstrous as her boyfriend. Oh, there are also some vague references to the 1950s/60s cliché about the evils of science run amok.<br /><br />Recommended for B sci fi buffs and graduate students in gender studies. O/w not recommended. | 0neg
|
The Brain That Wouldn't Die is one awful piece of film that stinks from the opening credits. It's got all the classic signs of being bad: unbelieveable plotline, terrible acting, low-grade sets and lighting. The plotline goes like this: When a doctor and his fiancee get caught in an accident, she gets decapitated and he picks up her head and takes her to his lab, where he sets up her head in a pan with some special liquid that keeps it alive. I'll bet Virgnina Leath, who played the head in a pan had to spend a lot of uncomfortable time wearing that pan around her neck and squatting under a table. Anyway, the doctor then tries to find her a new body, and hires two strippers so she can chose one to have her new body. Bad all the way through, so bad it was torn to pieces on Mystery Science Theater 3000. | 0neg
|
Neat premise. Very unrealistic. What I learned from this movie is that speeding crazily out of control to go to the weekend cabin may not be the best idea after all. I loved how Bill conveniently rolls out of the car and down the hill with no injury at all! Unfortunately, the same can't be said for his gal. Oh, and the police never seemed to find the car or trace the owner of the wreck.<br /><br />Lots of dragged out scenes including a plain stripper (still have nightmares from that scene). Poor assistant guy and his crummy useless hand. I admit I was intrigued to see what the mysterious "thing" was behind the door, but when it appeared, I just laughed. HA HA HA!! The girl really seemed sadistically angry about being revived. Personally, I really would want a new body after an excruciating experience like that! | 0neg
|
A demented scientist girlfriend is decapitated so he brings her head back to life. Honest this is the plot of the movie. He try's to get her another body he searches through the sleaze area of town for that perfect body. For some reason he has ugly looking monster in a closet at his cabin. The sleaze style of the movie is laughable. No one in the movie can actually act including the head. The closet monster is a man with a mask tie on and you can really tell. The plot is slow, weak and the ending is so badly done. Watch the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version of this move. Believe me folks I wouldn't watch this movie on its own. | 0neg
|
Another movie that relies upon the trite, worn-out cliché of the mad scientist gone madder. The movie centers around a surgeon whose life's ambition is to bring the dead...back to life. I know, I know...you've never heard that one before! Of course, as all of these movies go, the experiment goes very, very wrong and creates a maniacal, bloodthirsty creature. For this promising setup, you'd think that it'd be at least a bit suspenseful. Wrong. Like many movies of this era, the idea is nice, but the execution and the script is mediocre. Not the worst horror movie I've seen (no, Abominator: the Evilmaker 2 still takes the cake)...but not one of the gems, either. | 0neg
|
A doctor who is trying to complete the medical dream of transplantation is experimenting secretly on corpses from the hospital with varying success. His final best chance comes when he lovingly wraps his girlfriend's head in his jacket as he rescues it from a burning vehicle.<br /><br />I was looking for cheese and with this premise I believed I found it. It has everything everything that bad movie hunters look for - chest and brain surgery with the surgeons leaving with pristine white scrubs, unique camera angles (I always love watching the rear passenger wheels of cars), cheesy clarinet stripper music, and one of the longest death scenes in movie history. But unfortunately these so-bad-they-are-good moments can't overcome the too-bad-they-stink stretches.<br /><br />Jan in the Pan annoyed me, with her droning monologues in a hoarse whisper, the somewhat less than evil laughter, and the fact she was kept alive with some Columbian home brew coffee and 2 DD batteries.<br /><br />I couldn't even entertain myself with Dr Bill's horrid overacting and moral self righteousness. Usually such ham makes these movies a must see in my opinion, in this case I was bored with it.<br /><br />The best part of the movie in my opinion was the 1960's version of "body shopping" and I even found myself nodding off during that.<br /><br />Don't spend money on this one - there are better bad movies out there to entertain your sick sense of humor. | 0neg
|
**Possible Spoilers Ahead**<br /><br /> Jason (a.k.a. Herb) Evers is a brilliant brain surgeon who, along with wife Virginia Leith, is involved in the most lackluster onscreen car crash ever. Leith is decapitated and the doctor takes her severed noggin back to his mansion and rejuvenates the head in his lab. The mansion's exterior was allegedly filmed at Tarrytown's Lyndhurst estate; the lab scenes were apparently shot in somebody's basement. The bandaged head is kept alive on "lab equipment" that's almost cheap-looking enough for Ed Wood. Some of the library musicthe movie's high pointlater turned up in Andy Milligan's THE BODY BENEATH. Leith's head has some heavy metaphysical discourses with another of Ever's misfires, a mutant chained in the closet. Meanwhile, the good doc prowls strip joints looking for a body worthy of his wife's gabby noodle. The ending, in uncut prints, features some ahead-of-its-time splatter and dismemberment when the zucchini-headed monster comes out of the closet to bring the movie to a welcome close. This thing took three years to be released and then, audiences gave it the bad reception it richly deserved. Between this, PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and a few others, 1959 should have been declared The Year Of The Turkey. | 0neg
|
This movie tells the tender tale of a demented scientist who, after his fiance is decapitated, goes around ogling strippers so that he can find a suitable body to attach her noggin to. Everyone in this movie exudes more slime than a snail, particularly our protagonist. | 0neg
|
Following a car accident, a mad scientist(Jason Evers) keeps the head of his fiancee(Virgina Leith)alive. He then goes on the prowl looking for the perfect body to make her whole again. Pretty lame all the way around, nothing redeeming here. Also in the cast are: Leslie Daniels, Bonnie Sharie and Bruce Brighton. Someone should have helped put this one out of its misery. Let it die. | 0neg
|
I bought this film on DVD so I could get an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. Thankfully, Mike, Crow, and Tom Servo are watchable, because the film itself is not. Although there is a plot, a story one can follow, and a few actors that can act, there isn't anything else. The movie was so boring, I have firmly confirmed that I will never watch it again without Tom, Crow and Mike. As summarized above, however, it was better than the film featured in the MST3K episode that preceded it; Mitchell. | 0neg
|
...but it'll make you wonder if we had any in the first place! This movie is just as bad as any of today's horrible horror. A man goes around ogling semi-clad ladies, trying to decide which one to kill so he can give his girlfriend a new body. One scene involves a man staggering around and spurting all over the set for a full three minutes, coating everything what what must be well over ten gallons of "blood." The movie also attempts to create a sense that what the man is doing to his girlfriend is wrong and against nature, but the movie is so badly done it's impossible for the audience to dredge up any feeling of shock or outrage. Aimlessly dark and unimpressively sinister, this movie can't even get its own title straight-- the beginning credits say "The Brain That Wouldn't Die," but the end credits list it as "The Head That Wouldn't Die." | 0neg
|
... or an audience. A quick recap....<br /><br />So you've got this doctor who's been experimenting with stolen body parts for some vague reason. He wants to perfect transplants, but feels he needs to do this in his basement. WTF??? And then suddenly, unfortunately, and conveniently, his fiancé gets her head cut off in a traffic accident that HE'S responsible for. Agonized with grief, he preserves her head in a lasagna pan (or is it strudel?) and pumps it full of "adreno-serum" (sic) to keep it alive. And then she awakes, talking her head off (so to speak) even though her neck was obviously severed at the vocal cords, and she has no lungs so she couldn't speak even if she had 'em. Seems the ungrateful b*tch doesn't appreciate all that her fiancé has done for her. Just like a woman.....<br /><br />Then his grief turns to horniness as he sees the possibility of grafting his beloved's head onto the body of the first sleazy bimbo he can pick up off the street. Meanwhile, the doctor's assistant, a sort of dime-store Igor, gets into philosophical arguments with the head, who has struck up a telekinetic friendship with the "monster in the closet" (every mad scientist has one). Eventually the screenwriter realizes that he can't keep inflicting his misogyny and fear of intimacy issues on the audience ad infinitum, so he kills everybody, then presumably goes to the bank to cash the check before the movie's financial backers have a chance to stop payment on it. <br /><br />Have I mentioned that I think this is a bad movie?<br /><br />Someone should tell Turner Classic Movies to stop showing that edited version without the gory stuff. The sight of the assistant with his arm ripped off, pirouetting around the house without leaving much blood anywhere is just too precious. | 0neg
|
This movie is a loose collection of unintelligible analogies and ill conceived plot devices.<br /><br />Movie history: The director of this film was a pervert who drove around town filming random women. When his wife discovered the film reels, he was forced to quickly contrive a story. He claimed he was making a movie called "The brain that wouldn't die." Eventually, his wife demanded that he show her his "so called movie." That night he quickly filmed some extra scenes with a friend and "The Brain that wouldn't Die" was born.<br /><br />I hate this movie! Plot Synopsis: The main character's fiancé is killed in a horrible car accident(that he caused by ignoring the clearly posted road signs). He grabs her head from the wreckage and reanimates it. After reanimating the head, he goes and picks up a bunch of hookers. That is pretty much what happens for the rest of the movie. At the end, he fights and is killed by a monster that lives in the closet. The monster appears with little to no explanation. However, the monster saves a hooker and I assume that they live happily ever after.<br /><br />Side notes: The end credit screen claims that the movie is called "The Head that wouldn't Die".<br /><br />I hate this movie! | 0neg
|
This film was really bad whether you take it as a sci-fi movie, as a horror one or even as a comedy. The whole thing is ridiculous.<br /><br />The film looks (and is) definitely cheap, the actors have no idea of what acting is and the script shows clearly that it was being made along with the shooting. It is obvious that the monster in the closet was added because the living head was not scary at all -she was even pretty- and they thought they needed something more impressive; they failed here too (the make up is awful even for the late 50's, rather funny).<br /><br />The film shows clearly why Director Joseph Green's career as such and also as a writer never materialized; he was really bad at both. Same goes to the actors, leading and supporting.<br /><br />"The Brain That Wouldn't Die"'s best achievement is its short running time. | 0neg
|
I bought this DVD for $1 at Walmart. After seeing it, I might just return to the store and try to get my money back! The only reason I gave the movie a 2 and not a 1 is that the story has a few novel story elements, though it really never rises to the level of being interesting. This film has all the earmarks of being a made for the drive-in theaters market--ultra-low budget, amateurish acting and a liberal dose of sex (for an early 60s film). In fact, I wonder if perhaps the only reason the film was made was to make a fast buck AND because someone knew some strippers they could use as extras. The film is about a wacko doctor who wants to transplant his girlfriend's severed head onto the body of an unsuspecting donor. Most of the potential donors are skanky strippers or a model--whose only real purpose in the film is to titillate as they remove most of their clothes. However, they keep too much on to make the movie even worth watching for the naughty bits and the film isn't quite awful enough to merit watching by bad film buffs. | 0neg
|
I saw this movie thinking that it would be one of those old B movies that are fun to watch. I was so wrong! This movie was boring and obviously aimed at males who like looking at corpulent women. The story was so ridiculous and implausible that it lost my interest altogether. It seemed to be in the same genre as the Ed Wood films - bottom of the barrel. | 0neg
|
Where to begin, there's so much wrong and horrible about this movie I am not sure where to start. Okay, the two stooges who wrote this crapper. Joseph Green and Rex Carlton, first they couldn't make up their so-called minds for a name. My guess they split the difference, that's why the main title is BRAIN THAT WOULDN'T DIE, but the end screen says HEAD THAT WOULDN'T DIE. Neither one knows anything about the Medical profession. After all Doctors take oaths to "do no harm". Killing a woman for a head transplant would be considered "harm". Plus, a little thing called blood and tissue matching. Rejection would spell death for Jan in the pan. Plus who keeps a patch work monster. What medical school did Bill graduate from, FRANKENSTIEN UNIVERSITY? Old FU, or MAD SCIENTIST TECH? The monster had no name, that bugs the hell out of me. Plus, the brilliant surgeon Doctor Bill Cortner doesn't know how to keep a patient sedated? All and all a disaster of a movie, it's incredibly stupid and unwatchable, except on MST3K. I give it THE THANKSGIVING TURKEY. | 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.