text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
I'll say one thing for Jeanette and Nelson--even when stranded in a mirthless, witless, painfully inept musical like this, there's still that twinkle in their eyes. Yes, the chemistry between the famous duo is there even when the material is paper thin. Even when the score is practically a throwaway, non-existent one depending on just a couple of catchy tunes. And even when the circumstances are so unbelievable--yes, even for a fantasy.<br /><br />Truth to tell, she has more chemistry with Nelson than with her own real-life husband Gene Raymond in SMILIN' THROUGH, which, nonetheless, was a considerably better film.<br /><br />Sorry, I love Jeanette and Nelson as much as the next fan, but this is the bottom of the heap. Jeanette is more than embarrassing in her one "hep" number with Binnie Barnes--and Nelson can only come up with a blank stare when faced with the most ludicrous situations.<br /><br />One can only wonder what this was like on Broadway in 1938. Surely, it must have had more wit and style than is evident in this weak MGM production. Edward Everett Horton fizzles in an unfunny role and none of the supporting players can breathe any semblance of life into this mess. It's like amateur night at the studio even with the few professionals sprinkled among the supporting cast.<br /><br />Summing up: Painfully clumsy rendering of a Rodgers and Hart musical. Can't recommend it, even for fans of MacDonald and Eddy. And even if Jeanette's close-ups still glow with her gossamer beauty, this film is jaw-droppingly bad. | 0neg
|
When anyone comes into a film of this type of film it's not without saying that an overdose of that great over-the-counter brain-medicine, Suspension of Disbelief, comes in mighty handy.<br /><br />Jeanette MacDonald plays two roles: Anna/Brigitta, the woman who Nelson Eddy has ignored since the beginning of time, but who also is -- an angel sent to Earth.<br /><br />My reaction when I saw this was a mute gasp of "Hunh?" Where have I seen this before? It turns out, I have seen it before, but in a movie made much later than this one. DATE WITH AN ANGEL, a forgettable pile of dreck made in 1987, cashed in on the ethereal beauty of one Emmanuelle Beart who had no speaking lines, also wore a blond wig, and made life hell for soap-actor Michael Knight. Much worse in every conceivable angle with ultra-low 80s values but more than likely an updated version of this 1942 turkey.<br /><br />Anyway, not to elaborate, this is not a memorable film and stands as a doorstop of information because it was the last time MacDonald and Eddy, neither very good actors but terrific singers, would be together playing up the "innocence" and "clean-cut" romance that they were known for. After that you may need a cold shower, not because there are any steamy scenes here, but to get rid of the memory. | 0neg
|
The final pairing of Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald is basically a complete misfire.The script is weak and has been presented badly.The film just has no life in it.Eddy and MacDonald would have been better off just making a filmed concert for their final pairing.There's nothing wrong with their singing,its just everything else in this turkey thats overcooked. | 0neg
|
The Sentinel represents everything about the soul-lessness of Hollywood and the saddening lack of imagination present in so many movies these days. I cannot possibly think of one good thing about it, it's all so generic, so factory-made and so lazy assembled that it really only exists as an infomercial on how to make money from the unsuspecting, undeserving public.<br /><br />A plot about a Secret Service Agent planning to assassinate the Prez could well be entertaining. If handled by a good director or caring cast that is. Douglas is the one who is framed. Basinger is the First Lady, with whom he is having an affair (an undeveloped, unresolved plot contrivance). Sutherland is the best pal who believes his guilty because there would be no movie if he didn't. And Longoria is nothing. A woman with a fortune of Maybelline and...that's it. I guess there are less requirements for women when entering the Secret Service. As usual in a film like this the role of the Prez himself is nothing more than a tool, a token and is very badly written.<br /><br />Clark Johnson's, he who gave us the equally as pathetic SWAT back in 2003, mechanical direction lacks any kind of signature and has all the visual sophistication of a cheap TV-movie. Douglas, Basinger and Sutherland look incredibly bored and phone-in their performances from afar. Eva Longoria, the most over-exposed woman of the 21st Century, is basically only in this to attract to the Desperate Housewives audience. Her role is 100% pointless and she does absolutely nothing to further the plot or add to character development. She barely has 2 lines to rub together. A truly shameless marketing ploy.<br /><br />If you're a glutton for punishment then don't let me stop you. But it IS time and money you won't be getting back. | 0neg
|
This, for lack of a better term, movie is lousy. Where do I start......<br /><br />Cinemaphotography - This was, perhaps, the worst I've seen this year. It looked like the camera was being tossed from camera man to camera man. Maybe they only had one camera. It gives you the sensation of being a volleyball.<br /><br />There are a bunch of scenes, haphazardly, thrown in with no continuity at all. When they did the 'split screen', it was absurd. Everything was squished flat, it looked ridiculous.<br /><br />The color tones were way off. These people need to learn how to balance a camera. This 'movie' is poorly made, and poorly done.<br /><br />The plot - You got to be kidding. If I was an SS agent, I'd sue the producers. looked like the Marks Brothers with radios and guns. Sutherland was in his '24' mode - I can see this for free. Eva Longoria would have been better with a little less on, and a lot more showing. As an action bimbo she wasn't much.<br /><br />I couldn't see a real plot, other than Douglas boinking the Presidents wife. Never did say why the mercenaries were trying to kill the pres. I just don't see the President of the United States running for his life in the utility tunnels of a building, like a rat in a maze. p-l-e-a-s-e.<br /><br />Hollywood is dead. This movie is the proof. I like 'the big screen'. Have since I was a kid. Many more 'movies' like this and I'll quit going. Whats the matter Hollywood, made so many chick flicks, forget how to make a real movie? If I owned a theater, I'd start running the old movies. The one with real actors, good story lines - and good Cinemaphotography.<br /><br />This 'movie' is a dog. Don't waste your time or money on it. I rate this 'movie' a zero! Douglas isn't suited for this role. I can over look his age, but his just is to much of a wimp to carry this off. | 0neg
|
Slow, Slow, Slow... There is no mystery or excitement in this film. If you don't figure out who the "mole" is in the first ten minutes you must be brain dead. The secret service must have been too, because it took them the whole film to put it together. There are no compelling characters in the movie (not film). The pace of the movie is slow there is no tension. The hired killer is an excellent shot unless he is aiming at Michael Douglas than all he seems to be able to hit is large panes of glass. The funniest scene in the movie is when the presidents wife says the code word at the anticlimactic ending. It is laugh out loud ridiculous. At least six people got up and left the movie early. I would have joined them if I were not sitting in the middle of the row. I would not recommend this film to anyone. | 0neg
|
Almost every plot detail in this movie is illogical and implausible. It carries no semblance of a genuine human story, dead and dull. It is a parody of Hollywood, with trumpet musical bits that remind you of a Denzel Washington movie, wobbly camera shots and focusing, racist stereotypes, absolutely unnecessary and comical shots and gestures of famous people in clothing catalogue poses. It is made to cater for the multitude of zombies whose meaning in life derives from watching celebrity names. The only good thing in the movie is the end credits and funky song that accompanies it. I feel like an idiot for watching this, save yourself. | 0neg
|
Trying to conceive of something as insipid as THE SENTINEL would be pretty difficult. The problems are many. The result is terrible and loaded with plot holes.<br /><br />Michael Douglas stars as Pete Garrison, a Secret Service agent who "took one" for Reagan during the attempt on his life. Years later we find Pete assigned to the Whitehouse Family, mainly as a guard for the First Lady (Kim Basinger, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL). Troubles arise as we see Pete's close involvement with the First Lady, and a sudden threat against the President himself (David Rasche, UNITED 93). When Pete fails a polygraph test, he's singled out as a disgruntled agent by investigator David Breckinridge (Kiefer Sutherland, 24 TV series).<br /><br />As the presidential assassination plot unfolds, Pete finds himself on the run from his own people. His only confidant is the First Lady, and she's reluctant to tell anyone about their affections for one another (which is why Pete failed the polygraph in the first place). But is Pete really innocent? Or is he simply trying to buy time until he can kill the President? If he is innocent, how can he help prevent the assassination attempt while running from the Secret Service? <br /><br />The one, big, overwhelming problem with this film is that there's no justification for the reason behind the presidential threat. Isn't that what the movie's supposed to be about? One would think so! But the audience is never let in on why the assassin(s) want to kill the Prez. Hmm. Someone forget to put that in the script somewhere? <br /><br />And what's with David Breckinridge's (Kiefer's) new partner, Jill Marin (Eva Longoria, CARLITA'S WAY)? Seems that she was put in the film strictly as a piece of a$$-candy. What was her purpose again? Did she do anything other than look nice in tight pants and a low-cut blouse?<br /><br />There are so many problems with the basic premise of The Sentinel as to be laughable. The action is too easily stymied by the "What the...?" responses sure to be uttered by those unfortunate enough to watch the movie. | 0neg
|
Lets first start this review with the fact that I SIGNED UP JUST TO WRITE THE REVIEW AND WARN PEOPLE TO SAVE Their MONEY!!<br /><br />This was one of the worst pieces of trash i have seen since The Hulk. The storyline was the most predictable garbage you could possibly come up with. If you are expecting 24 but on the big screen, flush that expectation down the toilet immediately along with the money you would use for a ticket.. You may get more enjoyment that way. The acting was terrible, the plot was completely unrealistic, (along with the so called "twist" in the end. I must say this.. The ending did surprise me. I am not referring to the plot twist that surprised me, but instead the effortless manner that they put together what could be considered the ONLY scene of somewhat decent action in the entire movie. They rushed the ending so quickly that I didn't even realize that it was over until I saw the credits rolling and at that point i considered burning the reel of film if I could just figure out how to get into that screening room.<br /><br />Casting was awful for a few reasons. First of all, they must have accidentally switched the character assignments, because Michael Douglas played the roll that CLEARLY Keifer Sutherland should have been playing. While Douglas was sneaking around agents, tapping phone lines, hacking into systems and taking out people who are chasing after him, Sutherland plays the less capable agent who is always in a bad mood even when things aren't going that badly for him. He plays a very bland agent, nothing like his Jack Bauer type roll us 24 fans love.<br /><br />I can just about promise you that this movie will disappoint in all areas. It can be best compared to a remake of the "The Fugitive" / "In The Line of Fire" but written by people with mental disabilities | 0neg
|
There is good. There is bad. And then their is The Sentinel, a bottom-barrel political "thriller" that ranks among the worst movies I have ever seen. The plot of a mole in the Secret Service is a good one, but never has a movie with so much potential been so utterly butchered. Directed with ham-handed "edginess" by Clark Johnson, every actor in this film seems to be working on autopilot. Even the great Michael Douglas looks bored here. I can honestly say I have NEVER, in all my life, viewed another film with so many glaring plot holes. The twist is predictable from square one, and the character's motives are so utterly ridiculous that they inspired laughter from the audience. Avoid this at all costs. This is a catastrophe of a movie with no redeeming value. | 0neg
|
Seriously, I don't even know where to begin. It's like somebody gave a bazillion dollar budget to an autistic third-grader and said 'make me a movie about the secret service'. The editing is ridiculous, the cinematography was random at best, every single syllable of dialogue was completely retarded and the directing ... well, was there even a director there? Everything was just so pointless and lame and pointless...and random....and lame.<br /><br />Here's a SPOILER for you; this movie is the dumbest thing you'll ever see. <br /><br />However, if you liked this piece, you'll also enjoy; Deterrance, Dark Blue, and a partial frontal lobotomy. | 0neg
|
I saw the film tonight at a free preview screening, and despite the fact that I didn't pay a dime to see this film I still felt ripped off. Ladies and gentlemen, time is money and if you see this film you are leaving a Benjamin on your seat. The acting is torpid at best; Kiefer Sutherland phones in his worst impersonation of Jack Bauer, and Michael Douglas looks like he realizes he made a bad choice leaving Catherine Zeta-Jones for the duration it took to shoot this turkey. Eva Longoria is a non-entity; she looks like she's reading her lines off a teleprompter. And if you can't spot the "mole" within the first 20 minutes, then you just landed on this planet from a world without TV and recycled story lines. If you truly want to see a good secret service thriller, rent In the Line of Fire. If you see and buy into this one, you'll start to fear for the president's safety because the Secret Service looks and acts like the grown-up versions of the kinds from 90210. No matter what your feelings about W, let's hope this "art" does not imitate life. | 0neg
|
I've been willing to put up with a lot from late-spring/summer action fluff movies, but in general that's been due to the fact that most of them have reasonable payoff (i.e. cool special effects, interesting plot twists, comic value, Steve Buscemi, etc.). This movie, however, had none of this. All that we got was the cheap thrill of several minutes of Eva Longoria's cleavage (an issue of Maxim is cheaper than a movie ticket). There is an embarrassing lack of plot, suspense, back story, character development, continuity, etc. I would get into specifics, but quite frankly I've already-maybe willingly-forgotten most of the movie.<br /><br />The entire time I was in the theater, I was kicking myself for not just spending the afternoon watching a 24 season on DVD. Save your money on this one, folks. Unless you really, really, really like Eva Longoria's cleavage. | 0neg
|
Not to be confused with the above average supernatural thriller "The Sentinel". The Sentinel was a big bore of a movie for me, not delivering the consistent action, a couple of critics promised on the back. To me it seemed like everyone was Halfassing it, and only there to make some quick cash, because this felt very much like a made for TV film. The Sentinel is a rehash of several better films, like "In The Line Of Fire" this does not have any originality in it, and watching Michael Douglas run around, felt kinda silly in my opinion. The Main problem besides it's unoriginality, had to be the poor pace. I often got distracted while trying to view this movie, while looking how much run time was left, more then once. Not only the miscasting with Eva Longoria, who couldn't convince worth a lick.<br /><br />Performances. Michael Douglas is usually a dependable actor, here is obviously going through the motions. He does not convince as a man on a run, or a secret agent. His chemistry with Bassinger, was also off. I'm a big fan of Kiefer Sutherland, but here he is only OK, nothing more then that. He tries to come across as a gruff, but managed to be more bland then anything else, and to be honest, he didn't seem that interested. Eva Longoria Parker is pretty mediocre. She does not convince in her role, and was pure eye candy. Kim Basinger is pretty terrible as the 1st lady. She looks bored to tears, and her role is a throw away, more then anything else. Martin Donovan has a big part in the end, but not enough to matter for me.<br /><br />Bottom line. The Sentinel is yet, another political thriller, that bored me to tears. It's too old, too tired, and most importantly the lack of effort sucked. Not recommended.<br /><br />4/10 | 0neg
|
I saw the trailer of the film several times at theater and I excited. It looked like a classic action thriller like the ones made in 1990's. It recalled me also Fugitive movies, a cat and mouse chase between Douglas and Sutherland. However, The Sentinel is the most tasteless action thriller of all time. As I see, many people say that this is like a TV movie. Not exactly. Firstly, there are much more better TV movies in this genre. Secondly, TV movies might be very fun sometimes, but this film is the exact opposite of having a good time. It is not stylish at all visually and the most important, the tone of the movie is unappealing. This is not an action movie, there are two action scenes consist of a chase and a clash. Also they are not big action scenes, but the worse is that those action scenes are very tasteless like the whole movie. The love affair between Douglas and Bassinger was very unnecessary. Besides, the assassination plot to the president is the most cliché story in this genre either, but they insist on that. And this is not a cat and mouse film as it is supposed to be. Although, Douglas is very old now, he has still potential for acting in an action thriller. In the film, Michael Douglas cannot be like Tommy Lee Jones, for example. Sutherland is a wrong choice either, because you feel as if you watch Jack Bauer and somehow, its character is one of the reasons which make the film like a TV movie, Eva Longoria Parker is a strange choice, of course she is too passive or straight in this movie, because she is a soap opera actress. The movie was not fun even one second to me, so I could not get over for a while. | 0neg
|
It saddens me to rate a movie with a lot of my favorite actors, locations and genres, i.e. Douglas, Sutherland, Washington, D.C. and political thriller, but 'The Sentinel' really hits a low. It's like they had a great idea up front, signed the right cast and had some great city shots and then took a holiday letting the remaining crew improvise the rest. And I wish I could blame it on yet another bland performance from Basinger (not only do I feel she's one of the worst actors in Hollywood, but I'm still steaming more than a decade later that she was the only one, and definitely the only bad actor in the film, to win an acting Oscar for 'L.A. Confidential.') But she wasn't the only problem. Sutherland, who I love as Jack Bauer on '24' once again plays
Jack. I miss his old 'A Time to Kill' or 'A Few Good Men' days. Douglas certainly took a hiatus from acting and phoned this one in. Plot: Someone, some Secret Service traitor, wants the President dead and Douglas is (haphazardly) being framed. Will someone believe him? Actually, no spoiler here: as quickly as they came up with that subplot half-way through, it's over before you know it. And why did someone(s) want the President dead? Is that to be revealed in the sequel? Too many plot holes, too many doors opened and never closed and too predictable 'The Sentinel' is. If you only see one movie a year, you may not know who the mole is, but anyone who's familiar with these types of movies or even just seen one 'Law & Order' episode you'll know in the first few frames. Was it terrible? Not really, the cinematography was good, and despite Sutherland playing Jack again, he's still got it. | 0neg
|
A bum gives a Secret Serviceman a tip about a Secret Service man in the presidential detail who plans to kill the president. Baloney. How did the bum know? The script then turns to a most detailed examination of how the Secret Service works, but who cares. Most of this just slows down the movie. All the chases that follow are this film's version of the tiresome car chases of many movies. Then, after a lot of impossible athleticism in which our hero outruns and out-guns all his buddies, we have a shootout in the Toronto City Hall. The Canadians are clearly marked with maple leafs, but how did they get into this? Finally, all is worked out. But it still makes no sense. | 0neg
|
SPOILER ALERT ! ! ! Personally I don't understand why Pete did not help to save Williams life,I mean that would be great to know why William was motivated,or forced.I think Secret Service members are every day people,and there is a rumor the writer was a member of the Secret Service,now he's motivations are clear,well known.But as a rental this film will not satisfy you,cause the old but used twists,the average acting -these are just things in this film,only for keep you wait the end.Clark Johnson as the director of S.W.A.T. did a far better work like this time,and I still wondering how the producers (for example Michael Douglas)left this film to theaters. | 0neg
|
Hollow point is an alright movie worth a half price rental or if nothing else is on a good time waster with no thought required. There are the requisite explosions and hammy acting and pretty ladies. A pretty good cast with Donald Sutherland, John Lithgow, and the lovely Tia Carrere. This cast plus a light hearted touch make for a not a great movie but a fun one..on a scale of one to ten ..a 4 | 0neg
|
The director Sidney J. Furie has created in Hollow Point a post-modern absurdist masterpiece that challenges and constantly surprises the audience. <br /><br />Sidney J. Furie dares to ask the question of what happens to the tired conventional traditionalist paradigms of 'plot' and 'characterisation' when you remove the crutches of 'motivation' and 'reason'. <br /><br />The result leads me to say that my opinion of him could not possibly get any higher.<br /><br />One and a half stars.<br /><br />P.S. Nothing in this movie makes any sense, the law enforcement agents are flat out unlikeable and the organised criminals are full on insane. | 0neg
|
This bomb is just one 'explosion' after another, with no humor and only absurd situations. Really, pyrotechnics to the extreme. Reality is not one of its strong points. I give it a 1 out of 10. I would have made it a zero but that option wasn't permitted. Sorry, but Lithgow and Sutherland deserve better roles. But then at times we all need to have money. And I still recoil at that Tim Burton farce about Mars. Nicholson was brave enough to admit that was a turkey. But if that was a turkey, this movie then is not even a gizzard. I wish I could say, "give me back my money". You can bet I would if I could. But that is the trouble with premium services, the subscription variety. | 0neg
|
I saw this movie years ago in a group tradition of Fast Forward Film Festivals, where we would set out to rent a bunch of B-movies and vote for who picked the worst.<br /><br />The night we watched this, it was voted the best, due to semblance of plot and fun costuming.<br /><br />This is certainly a silly, kitschy, movie, to be watched under the full understanding that you are watching low-budget fluff. Personally, however, I wouldn't recommend additional substances ... this movie will leave it's own mark on you.<br /><br />It made enough of an impression on me that I've actually been trying to get my hands on a copy for a few years.<br /><br />A good choice if you are setting out to watch bad movies. This one is fun, and I remember bouncy music ... | 0neg
|
This film is horribly acted, written, directed and produced. But it's so campy it's actually semi-watchable. That's SEMI watchable.<br /><br />The storyline (what little there is) makes virtually no sense whatsoever. The Barney Drum character is the only real comic relief in the movie and that gets tired after about 30 seconds. <br /><br />Many of the Canadian supporting cast can be found in TV commercials.. None of them went on to anything else that I'm aware of. And of course Sly Stallone's even less talented brother well..... =\<br /><br />Trivia: It was filmed almost entirely in and around the little village of Claremont, Ont. (about 20 miles N.east of Toronto) I recognized many local landmarks/intersections/buildings. I think the Drive-in scene was filmed at the now demolished "Oshawa Drive-in" just before it was torn down. | 0neg
|
To say this film stinks would be insulting to skunks. As the other commenter says, this movie is insulting to anyone over the mental age of 7 (it is especially, incredibly insulting to gays). It is awful - and not in a "so bad it's funny" sort of way either - it's just plain awful. No, I have to say it: IT STINKS! (sorry skunks).<br /><br />From the opening credits to the end titles there is hardly more than 10 seconds of this movie worth opening your eyes for. The "plot" is incoherent, the characterization non-existent, the acting is of the over the top mugging "look at me I'm being funny!" school and so it goes on. The set pieces are clumsily set up (if at all) and are badly executed, it's just awful on every front - apart from the music maybe, I don't remember thinking the music stinks (apart from the songs).<br /><br />To be fair to the makers, they lay their cards on the table pretty quickly: the opening credits include the title "Also starring Ertha Kitt as the voice of Betty the meteor" (since as the meteor in question turns out never never say anything but make an occasional purring noise they may well have lifted Ms. Kitt's contribution from one of her records) and the second line of the movie runs something like: "...and scientists have discovered new facts about the rings around Uranus." Uranus - "Your Anus" geddit? geddit? huh? huh?? Your Anus? The humour really is that cheap.<br /><br />It says strange things about the "comedies" of that period in that it was perfectly permissable for the hero to deliberately shoot people dead in the street but not say "sh*t" out loud.<br /><br />I paid fifty pence (about $1.00) for this movie in a sale. I feel ripped off. | 0neg
|
Sly Stallone is hardly the finest actor in the world but compared to his brother, Frank...well, roll out those awards now! Mullet haired, muppet Frank seems to think that every part he plays, calls for him doing the role as an American/Italian Wise-guy refugee from the 'Godfather.' Please, somebody make him an acting offer 'he can refuse!' This film just stinks the place out, even by the terrible overacting in this, Frank still steals the acting dishonours. All the people compensate for their lack of talent by shouting their lines and throwing their arms about, gesticulating wildly in a style that went out of fashion back with silent films.<br /><br />The plot, what there, is, makes no sense as a meteor lands and turns all the women into sex-crazed nymphets but as this is 15 certificate film, that just means they strip to their underwear and make moaning sounds like dogs on heat. What happens in the end, I'm not quite sure as I was losing the will to live long before the film finished.<br /><br />Avoid this like the plague and watch 'Deep Impact' for a reasonable film about a meteor about to hit the earth.<br /><br />N.B. Point of order: when one of the female leads strips down to her underwear, she has her knickers/panties under her suspenders/garter belt, it's knickers over the suspenders to allow women to go to the toilet with less fuss. A trivial point, perhaps, but shows how dumb this film is when they can't even get this right! | 0neg
|
102 Dalmatians (2000, Dir. Kevin Lima) <br /><br />Believed to be cured, Cruella de Vil (Close) is released from prison and sets out to make a new start in life. Things are going well for Cruella who is busy helping homeless dogs off the street. When the clock strikes on Big Ben, things turn bad. The hypnotic cure is reversed and Cruella is back, and this time she is determined to make that spotted coat she always wanted.<br /><br />Glenn Close reprises her role as Cruella de Vil and once again is the highlight of the film. Every scene with her in is worth watching in this dull sequel, which feels more of a repeat of the previous film, rather than a new story.<br /><br />She's Changed. Ken Sheperd (Ioan Gruffudd) | 0neg
|
I wouldn't bring a child under 8 to see this. With puppies dangling off of buildings squirming through dangerous machines and listening to Cruella's scary laugh to name a few of the events there is entirely too much suspense for a small child. <br /><br />The live action gives a more ominous feel than the cartoon version and there are quite a few disquieting moments including some guy that seems to be a transvestite, a lot of tense moments that will worry and may frighten small kids.<br /><br />I don't know what the Disney folks were thinking but neither the story nor the acting were of their usual level. The puppies are cute But this movie is spotty at best. | 0neg
|
After seeing the 1996 remake, I thought it was the funniest way to see Cruella De Vil getting her punishment for torturing animals just for their skin. The whole movie was quite funny, and on my view, better than the animated one. But there was actually no need for a second one. First of all, if Cruela is returning, don't cure her and make her insane again. Just make her break away from jail and that's a rap. I thought it was not very funny. It's supposed to have only one original puppy returning. I'd expected that it should be Lucky, since he was the most appealing, and besides, having Roger and Anita back too. However, they decided to have a complete recasting and adding not really one hundred, not even one hundred and two, but only THREE puppies, and a parrot that thinks he's a dog (clever). Gerard Depardieu's part was pointless. At the end, Cruella suffers way too much, way too humiliating and way too exaggerated to be true. She gets baked inside a giant cake. That was a desperate attempt of physical humor, trying to imitate the same effect from the first one. That just didn't work. It was too much over the top, and not too funny. I actually felt sorry about Cruella. | 0neg
|
It is a good film for kids who love dogs. It runs a bit slow early on but ends if a flurry of gooped up De Vil. The basic plot is the same as the first movie. The bright side of the movie for adults is the talking bird that thinks it is a dog. The bird talks like a human(Eric Idle of Monty Python) and barks like a dog. It is the comedy that the film needed more of. See it in the matinee so you don't have to pay full price or wait for it to appear on Disney. | 0neg
|
...because this was simply awful. 101 Dalamatians was funny even if formulaic, but this is nothing more than puerile drivel. The same plot except with the story excised from it; the world's most intelligent and horribly annoying macaw; Tim McInnerny proving that he really can't do comedy (everone remembers Percy in Blackadder but that was his high spot - it's all been downhill since then); direction so poor that if a group of college students had made this you'd throw it in the bin and tell them to do it again - properly this time. Ieuan Grufford better go back to Hornblower sharpish, whilst Glenn Close and Gerard Diepardieu ought to go into hiding for several years.<br /><br />Perhaps I could be too harsh; after all I didn't manage to sit through the whole film. It gets 1/10; only because I can't give it 0. | 0neg
|
This film was pure pain. Sitting in the theater for x-amount of minutes, I was wondering when the film was going to start. All the setups were in place; typical love story, characters have to overcome their short-givings, villain has to emerge, but none of it ever initiated. By the time these things happened, I was already bored stiff and the devices were completely ineffective. In scenes that required immense tension and buildup, it felt like necessary frames were cut. Kid's stuff does not have to be this way. Children's films can be as riveting and engaging as adult ones. The excuse, "hey , its for kids," is bull. I'll take "Sword in the Stone" any day. This was terrible. I'm getting the feeling that Disney will put out anything these days. And as for the kids, the 10-year I saw this with will agree...pure trash. | 0neg
|
Remember the name Kevin Lime - and please, please never let<br /><br />him direct again. Timing, pacing, editing: all hopelessly wrong.<br /><br />Three or four decent professionals (next time, guys, walk off the<br /><br />set) can do nothing to save this film from amateurs like Alice<br /><br />Evans, and the kind of production standards you'd expect from<br /><br />teen-produced children's shows on british TV.<br /><br />Greatest mystery: the music. A score so inept, inappropriate and<br /><br />ill-matched to the tone of the film that one seriously wonders if it is<br /><br />a case of sabotage. Add an acoustic that booms apparently<br /><br />unengineered from a single mike, and a director who only<br /><br />intermittently remembers to add auditory action offscreen, and we<br /><br />have what must be on of the greatest ratio of money to result of<br /><br />recent years. | 0neg
|
I don't know why, but for some sick reason, I think since I've been on the Disney sequel binge, I decided to just go ahead and see 102 Dalmations. The first movie that was a remake of the Disney cartoon classic starring Glenn Close as Cruella De Vil, it seemed like a sure hit, but it was just a bomb. I think the reason why these movies don't work is because 101 Dalmations, the original, was a cartoon, it just worked better and was more appealing to the kids as well as adults. This was not really that fun because it's adults running around trying to act like cartoons instead of just actual human beings, I understand they're trying to make sure that it's appealing to the kids, but it's ridicules to see the way these actors are behaving in the film. And 102 Dalmations's story isn't really that good.<br /><br />Cruella De Vil has been in prison for a while, but things change when she is proved that she now loves animals and is a pleasant human being. But her reputation is now damaged as a puppy-napper, but she buys a man's dog shelter and is all of a sudden is being loved by everyone and it looks like she's changed. But when she sees her probation officer's Dalmatians, she goes crazy and starts seeing spots, and she looses it. She's back for revenge on puppies and is still determined to get that Dalmation coat she's always wanted.<br /><br />Glenn Close is such an amazing actress, very under rated, but her taking on Cruella De Vil, she's good, but let's face it, this movie made the fun villain just more of a silly nut case. Also, as cute as the puppies were, it just works more for the animation, it sounds stupid, but it's just not as believable without the cartoon and their personalities being in the mix. I wouldn't really recommend 102 Dalmations, it's alright, but if you agree that the first movie was just a waste of time, this is just the same thing.<br /><br />2/10 | 0neg
|
A sequel to (actually a remake of) Disney's 1996 live-action remake of 101 Dalmations. Cruella deVil (Glenn Close) is released from prison after being "cured" of her obsession with fur by a psychologist named Dr. Pavlov (ugh!). But the "cure" is broken when Cruella hears the toll of Big Ben, and she once again goes on a mad quest to make herself the perfect coat out of dalmation hides.<br /><br />This movie is bad on so many levels, starting with the fact that it's a "Thanksgiving family schlock" movie designed to suck every last available dime out of the Disney marketing machine. Glenn Close over-over-over-over-acts as Cruella. With all that she had to put up with in this movie -- the lame script, the endless makeup, getting baked in a cake at the end -- I hope they gave her an extremely-large paycheck.<br /><br />(Speaking of which, where in the world are you going to find a fur coat factory, a bakery with a Rube Goldberg assembly line, and a candlelight restaurant all located within the same building -- as you do in the climax of this film?) Of course, the real stars of the movie are supposed to be the dogs. They serve as the "Macaulay Culkin's" of this movie, pulling all the stupid "Home Alone" gags on the villains. (Biting them in the crotch, running over their hands with luggage carts, squirting them with icing, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.) I have to admit, the dogs were fairly good actors -- much better than the humans.<br /><br />Gerard Depardieu is completely wasted in this movie as a freaked-out French furrier. The two human "dog lovers" -- rehashed from the earlier film, but with different actors -- are completely boring. When they have a spaghetti dinner at an Italian restaurant, the movie cuts back and forth between the two lovers, and their dogs at home, watching the dinner scene from "Lady and the Tramp." I thought to myself, "Oh please, don't go there!" I half-expected the humans to do a satire on the "Lady and the Tramp" dinner scene -- as Charlie Sheen did in "Hot Shots: Part Deux" -- doing the "spaghetti strand kiss," pushing the meatball with his nose, etc.<br /><br />And don't get me started on the annoying parrot with Eric Idle's voice.<br /><br />The costumes were nominated for an Oscar, and the costumes in the movie *are* good. But they are the only good thing in the movie. The rest of it is unbearable dreck. | 0neg
|
This sequel is thoroughly uneven, incoherent and rambling in "plot" (if there really is one)and tries too damned hard to be modern (ridiculous, out of period and character 21 st century style songs predominate) and cute (yawn: there are too many manufactured, belaboured jokes with animals.) The actors in his film are secondary to the juvenile plot. Even Glenn Close (and she is normally very good) sweeps through this film, parodying herself as the original De Ville and the lead from Sunset Boulevard! It's a film that isn't even good to look at. This is a very good example of a bad and pointless sequel. Even Basic Instinct 2 had a plot, characterisation and acceptable acting. This doesn't. It is bad. | 0neg
|
Only reason I have seen 101 Dalmatians was its nominations for original song and costume design for the Oscars. I must admit that I was less than impressed with this film. In this sequel, Cruella DeVil(by the way Glen Close pulls off this role very well) is released from the hospital due to her good behaviour. She likes all sort of animals and locks all her furs away. From that point, we only wait until she starts having crises. Soon enough, she does and tries to make the best coat of fashion world, of course for herself and from fine Dalmatian fur. Apart from Glen Close, I found all cast quite silly but from a child's eye funny. That is fair enough as its target market is, I assume, children under 12. Quite a good entertainment for children and families, but didn't do much for me. * out of ***** | 0neg
|
Conventional wisdom is that a sequel is seldom as good as the original movie. There are occasional exceptions, but this is NOT one of them. Disney should have quit while they were ahead. This was a real disappointment after a reasonably entertaining 101 Dalmatians. | 0neg
|
102 DALMATIANS [Walt Disney]: I wasn't a fan of the previous installment and this effort has all the weaknesses of the first, a silly padded storyline, terrible over acting by Glenn Close, who hams up every scene as though she's playing for her own amusement, and incredibly borring and uninteresting lead actors. Once more the dogs are the only "actors" that seem "real" and thats a stretch. Another wasted effort here. GRADE: D | 0neg
|
This movie provided NOTHING new or worthwhile. After seeing it, my wife and I both agreed that the studio simply churned this out and could have cared less if it was entertaining. This is a good example of a "concept only" film--they have a concept about a film and the other details are unimportant because execs KNOW it will make $$ just based on the initial concept.<br /><br />The movie starts with Cruella getting out of prison and going on parole. She no longer hates puppies but has been programmed to adore them--she simply couldn't hurt a flea. This doesn't last too long after her release and she's back to her old ways. Period.<br /><br />The most annoying aspects of the movie were the supporting characters. Eric Idle as the voice of Waddlesworth the bird made me HATE him--and that is TOUGH considering I am a die-hard Python fan. It was obvious he did this because they gave him lots of money (there can't be any other reason). Cruella's low self-esteem servant, Tim McInnerny, was funny in the Black Adder shows but here he is totally wasted and unfunny. And it must have cost a few bucks to get Gérard Depardieu but he was utterly wasted as well. There were some other supporting actors as well but given how poorly written the characters were, I am trying to block them out of my mind.<br /><br />Overall, you'd be better just to let your kids watch television than bother letting them see this drivel. | 0neg
|
My 10-year-old daughter, Alexandra, writes:<br /><br />I thought it was very boring, and I thought it was just a repeat of stuff from "101 Dalmatians." I couldn't wait for the movie to end. The best part was the credits at the beginning - they were cute and well done. The rest of the film is not worth watching. Thank you. | 0neg
|
I watched the film recently and it poorly resembles the book is based on. I blame this on poor screenplay and direction. Some parts were forcibly introduced (the gay rape scene) for no apparent reason. I actually read the book after watching the movie and some 20 years or so after reading it for the first time. I found it hard to read and somewhat clumsy. Too many disparate ideas introduced for no benefit at all... other than sensational parts for the time. As it covers stuff that was deemed 'sensitive', to say the least, during communism, I can see the fascination it produced at the time. That isn't the case anymore though or maybe I see things differently now or a bit of both. The film tries too much to cover many aspects from the book, the result being a concoction of scenes that may make some sense to someone who read the book. Even so this is a film that is difficult to watch and maybe should have never been made. | 0neg
|
Drew Barrymore plays young Holly Gooding, who moves in with aspiring hack screenwriter Patrick Highsmith (George Newbern) and completely disrupts his life by claiming that her "doppelganger", or evil twin, is out to kill her and her family.<br /><br />This silly horror film is kind of hard to take seriously, even if the film-makers and actors themselves seem to be dead serious. "Doppelganger" is muddled, with some unpleasantly dumb dialog.<br /><br />Some viewers will note that Drew's character's name is drawn from Audrey Hepburn's role in "Breakfast at Tiffany's", and that Newbern's character's name is a play on the name of famed author Patricia Highsmith (he is actually trying to re-write "Breakfast" as a horror film, believe it or not!).<br /><br />I suppose that it deserves some credit for not being quite your typical horror film - I mean, writer/director Avi Nesher seems to genuinely care for his characters, and gives his film more plot than standard slasher fare.<br /><br />After a silly villain-explains-everything-to-the-audience confrontation, the film goes on to submit a hideous, out-there climax that has to be seen to be believed. This film certainly does not skimp on the gore.<br /><br />But hey! Drew kills her mother in this one. No, I'm not joking. Jaid Barrymore shows up near the beginning only to get violently slaughtered.<br /><br />Drew is always very watchable, and very sexy in this one. Newbern comes off as a likable-enough, "nice" sort of guy. But the highpoint of the film has to be the scene with Sally Kellerman, an attractive veteran who's very professional in her one scene as a former nun who's started a phone sex business(!!!!!!).<br /><br />The film is basically junk but fairly amusing on a sleazy, sordid little level.<br /><br />4/10 | 0neg
|
Although I recently put this on my 10 worst films list, I have to say it's probably no worse than Burt Reynolds in "The Maddening" or any of the "Look Who's Talking" sequels. Still, it's pretty nauseating, even with sexy Drew Barrymore playing something of a horror-movie answer to Holly Golightly, relocating from New York City to Los Angeles but finding out she's being stalked by a murderous look-alike. Poor Sally Kellerman, a quirky actress of great acclaim in the '70s, is reduced here to a paltry supporting role, and Barrymore's leading man George Newbern is the worst type of sitcom actor, always pausing for a laugh after every line. The picture is swill, but Drew's bloody shower scene boasts showmanship, and the identity of the psycho (although right out of a "Scooby Doo" episode) is interesting. But as for the finale...get real! Who had to clean up THAT mess? * from **** | 0neg
|
Doppelganger has its moments, but they are few and far between.<br /><br />Essentially, this is a grade B blend of pop-psych thriller, ghost story and horror. Drew Barrymore plays a young woman who is haunted by the demons of her past (most of her family has been murdered and she was, in at least one case, the prime suspect), or does she just have a really bad case of multiple personality disorder? George Newbern is her new room mate, and most of the action centers on him.<br /><br />Newbern's character is pretty sympathetic, and both he and Barrymore do decent work (though not exactly good). The mediocre to (at times) totally horrendous script and the unimpressive directing seem to have combined to sink the rest of the performances into oblivion. Leslie Hope's character is memorable, but so irritating that you will want to forget her.<br /><br />The plot eventually disintegrates into a bifurcated (one story arc is psychological realism, the other is supernatural horror) outlandish climax which is so badly conceived, acted and photographed that it effectively counteracts most of what value the film had achieved previously.<br /><br />Overall, the film has the feel of what might expect to be the result of M. Knight Shamalyan's first undergraduate film class. The acting and script for the two leads are just good enough to make you care a little about them - at least until the film derails utterly and completely.<br /><br />My recommendation - send your doppelganger, but avoid a first-person encounter. | 0neg
|
I was interested in the topic, and only fans of Drew Barrymore's dancing on David Letterman's desk will find anything remotely interesting in it. OK, she shows some breast (or maybe a body double does). The plot is slashed to bits and the acting is horrible. Neither lead has any material to work with, as the direction of the film leads nowhere. Don't waste your time. See Donnie Darko instead if you want a creepy Drew Barrymore film, and if you want to see another, skip this and see Darko again.<br /><br />The treatment of the Doppelganger legend is absolutely criminal as well. Refer to Charles Williams' novel "Descent Into Hell" for something worth considering instead. This is just an excuse to make a B film to go straight to video and suck some life out of people at Blockbuster.<br /><br />What makes any of these people think the acting here was praiseworthy? Give me a break. | 0neg
|
Drew Barrymore keeps seeing her alter-ego all over town and it's really starting to become a pain in the butt.<br /><br />After Dee rents a flat from a hack writer, her encounters with 'the other Drew' become more frequent. Writer-dude feels that it's his responsibility to snap 'the real Drew' out of her stupor, so he does what he can to help including seducing her as soon as he has some free time. Not very interesting, and even less scary, but Drew is sexy as usual, especially when she gives a group of rude construction workers the finger... yeah Drew, that's hot! <br /><br />Best scene just might be where Drew stabs her real-life Mom, Jaid, with a big kitchen knife... hmmm... and how was your day? | 0neg
|
I have just watched the movie for the first time. I wanted to watch it as I like Drew Barrymore and wanted to see one of her early movies. <br /><br />The movie is about a girl (played by young and beautiful Drew Barrymore), who moves from NYC to LA in order to get over her recently troubled loss. Short after moving to a guy who falls in love with her, it becomes obvious that she has an evil twin=doppelganger, who haunts her.<br /><br />The movie is quite poor and lousy. Both the dialogs and the acting make the film not really worth seeing it. Summing up it is just something for the fans of Drew Barrymore. | 0neg
|
Here we have a movie which fails in pretty much every way it is possible for a movie to fail. Terrible script, lousy acting, amateurish directing, laughable special effects...it's just an utterly awful movie. Not to mention the fact that when you get to the end you'll realize the whole thing doesn't make a lick of sense. After spending the whole movie wondering what in the world is going on here when things are finally explained you realize the story has been built on a foundation which is ludicrously impossible. In one of those hideous "villain explains the whole movie" sequences we are told that our villain has done something which quite simply can't be done and which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Oh, and after that we see that there also appears to be some kind of jell-o monster involved. I'm sure Drew Barrymore would very much like to pretend this movie never happened. If for some ungodly reason you are ever tempted to sit down and watch this movie may I suggest instead taking that time to bang your head against a wall for 104 minutes. That would prove to be a much more pleasurable experience than sitting through this garbage. | 0neg
|
I got the DVD very cheap and I'm a total Drewbie, and thats probably the only constellation where this movie could ever interest anyone.<br /><br />An early Drew movie, she's looking great, and she gets a quite lot of really cute scenes of her, like a shower scene, a sexy dance scene, quite a number of sexy outfits etc. She does never show the friendly charm we know from her more recent movies.<br /><br />The movie itself is pretty average or sub-average, and much more looking like being made for the TV than one for the cinema. There is no real horror or tension built up and the dialogs are often cheesy.<br /><br />The most interesting part is probably the end because I honestly don't understand it. But maybe there is nothing to understand about it anyway. But at least you don't get the end you would be expecting, and it also comes much sooner than one would have expected.<br /><br />Overall I think this movie is exclusively for Drewbies. | 0neg
|
Even in a bad film, there is usually some redeeming feature, something that you can say yes it was terrible, but there was that performance, or that part of the script, or that special effect, this was just simply terrible all over. The acting was laughable, the script terrible, complete with many inexplicable Breakfast at Tiffany's references, and even the special effects were shoddy at best. This was a very bad film and one that even Drew Barrymore wishes was expunged from history. Watch it if you want to: a) Suffer harsh self inflicted pain. b) See just how bad a film can be. This is one film where I can use the cliché "there's ninety minutes of my life I will never get back" with some justification! | 0neg
|
Drew Barrymore is an actress that has gone through bad periods, not only in her career, but in her personal life too. After being a prodigy child actress she descended into obscurity with mediocre films of low quality. While she has recovered from that dark past, this movie stays as a reminder of Drew Barrymore's worst days.<br /><br />The movie starts with an interesting premise, very reminiscent to Brian De Palma's "Raising Cain"; with a plot dealing with multiple personality disorder that sets the story for a horror/thriller. Barrymore stars as Holly Gooding, a young woman who is trying to make a new life in California after a traumatic event of her past in which apparently her other personality killed her mother.<br /><br />Suddenly, her past returns to haunt her as her evil personality is back in her life willing to ruin her new found peace and her new found love. In the middle of the chaos his new boyfriend, Patrick Highsmith (George Newbern), will try to help Holly to face the demons of her past.<br /><br />Unlike De Palma's underrated thriller, "Doppelganger" is for the most part a mediocre film that not only never fulfills it's purpose, it also concludes in one of the worst endings of movie history. While Barrymore is definitely not at her best, she manages to keep her dignity with an above average performance. The rest of the cast however range from mediocre to painfully bad over-the-top performances, although Leslie Hope manages to be among the best of them.<br /><br />The script is full of clichés and De Palma's influence is quite obvious. While the movie tries to be original by making literary references in almost every line, the dialogs are dull and the wooden acting certainly doesn't do any good. It has a fair share of nudity and for strange reasons, and excessive use of special effects.<br /><br />The make-up effects are done by the outstanding KNB and are really among the few good things in the movie. However, the bizarre over-use of the effects in the totally out of context ending decreases the impact of KNB's work and makes cheesy what in a different movie would be amazing.<br /><br />The fact that this is a B-Movie is no excuse for it's low quality, as with a better and more coherent script this could had been an interesting movie. Sadly, all we have here is a mediocre film that gets worse every second. Worthy for Barrymore's beauty. 3/10 | 0neg
|
Dear God! I kept waiting for this movie to "get started"... then I waited for it to redeem itself... and when it did neither, I just sat there, dumbfounded that: 1) it could possibly be this bad, and 2) that I had just wasted a couple of hours on just sheer stupidity. I had faith that Drew couldn't possibly have made this bad of a movie... and boy, did I ever lose my faith! Don't bother with this one! Drew tried, but the movie was poorly written, poorly acted, and just poorly conceived! I can't believe a script this bad ever got funded! It had a million chances to actually do something with the idea, (the word "concept" is too big for this movie to even qualify for!) and it STILL didn't go anyplace! Its just pitiful! Where the other reviewer got the idea that it wasn't the worst, baffles me! Because believe me, if it got any worse I'd have slit my wrists before finishing it! | 0neg
|
Are you kidding that was AWFUL!!! <br /><br />But that notwithstanding I got given this film and 3 others and they were all on DVD. The film starts of pretty much an OK movie but goes downhill from about the middle onwards.<br /><br />And the ending well let's just say it was one of the most anti climatic endings in recent film history. Lots of gore in the end sequence and if you like a dose of schlock horror then this is the film for you....<br /><br />3/10 | 0neg
|
Although it's an R rated movie, I really doubt that you'll really enjoy it unless you're a teenager<br /><br />Why? Because there's no real plot, no character development,no funny jokes. <br /><br />The only thing that this movie has plenty of is nudity. Tons and tons of naked or almost naked chicks (pretty nice ones I might add) to feast your eyes on.<br /><br />I really can't understand why this movie has the American Pie title since it's only a bad combination between an erotic movie and a comedy without succeeding in being either of them.<br /><br />My suggestion is to watch this movie only if you want to see some naked chicks, but you're too shy to rent/buy an erotic movie. <br /><br />Gave it 1/10 for the 2 smiles i had in the entire movie and another 2/10 for the nice chicks | 0neg
|
American Pie: Beta House is sort of in limbo between genres. On the one hand, it's a comedy with no plot and few genuinely clever jokes. On the other hand, it's porno that's a tad too soft-core to actually turn on any viewers. Essentially Beta House is a collage of sex scenes - some humiliating, others just lame attempts at humor - with a couple thin plot points thrown in an effort at cohesiveness. The characters are barely even two-dimensional, most development relies on knowledge of Naked Mile, and the "important" plot scenes are so far apart that you wonder why the writers even felt the need for a story.<br /><br />In all fairness, I did not go into this movie without expectations. I liked the original three American Pie movies, and thought Band Camp and Naked Mile were solid rentals. I thought Naked Mile was almost good enough to be released in theaters, and so when I saw that some of the same characters were returning for Beta House, I was excited to see this installment. I was aware that there would be numerous scenes of debauchery and sexual humiliation in multiple forms. And I was fine with it, because in the past, these scenes were backed by the story and were well integrated into the plot. In Beta House, however, it's almost as if the writers forgot why the formula in the other AP movies worked. They spent too much energy working in the nudity that they forgot to actually write a story.<br /><br />This movie is a disappointment and not even worth a one-dollar rental. The jokes are lame, the story is non-existent, and the porno-aspect is too tame if that's all you really care about seeing. | 0neg
|
Stifler, has finished running his naked mile and is now attending Beta House. Crazy stuff happens, people run around naked and nerds are made fun of and this series is dead in the water. The Naked Mile was a crap film, but I found it to be significantly better then Band Camp. It seems they've gone back to what didn't work for them and it shows that they don't care either. You can tell where the target audience is and they nailed it perfectly. Young teenage boys who like to see naked women, crude humour and beer drinking will love Beta House, everyone else can pretty much look away.<br /><br />Star Wars became a massive success that stunned audiences with it's ahead of its time special effects. Lord of the Rings created an entire world of mythical creatures and massive battles that dazzled the eye. The Matrix changed the way action and sci/fi films were made, specifically with the cutting edge special effects. With all the advancement in technology, we eagerly await the next big thing that will have our jaws dropped to the floor. Then comes American Pie: Beta House, which pushes the boundaries of what technology can do. When people have created spaceships, landscapes and creatures using CGI, Beta House decides to use this technology to create semen. Yes, the thing that creates life, the thing you see so many times in pornography films is created and time slows down to show us the white residue shoot across the room onto a teddy bear. Is this funny? Disgusting? Neither? Beta House shows more nudity then The Naked Mile, which is surprising considering the previous installments title. Does the film need it? Of course not, does it ever advance the plot, does it ever? Does it ever get a laugh? Does it ever get young boys aroused? Yes the women are beautiful, but if I am the one who thinks there is too much nudity then you might as well just have made a porno.<br /><br />The female who catches the affections of our main character is pretty and doesn't annoy the viewer, like previous girls have done in the series, but not once did I ever believe this character would ever do what she does. I'm pretty sure every action from the characters in this film are far from realistic. The American Pie series has fallen from a realm of reality into a fantasy world. None of the events in this film would ever happen, if they ever did then I need to attend this school IMMEDIATELY. Is this film suppose to make people feel like they are having a good time? Well it doesn't, we are watching them have a good time, by the end of the film we hate them for all the fun they are having.<br /><br />There is a "Deer Hunter" scene in the film, but to make it "funny" for today's audience they decided to substitute bullets wit horse semen. Are you laughing yet? Instead of shooting themselves with said semen in the head, or face, they place the gun in their mouths. Are you on the floor laughing yet? The first time we are introduced to Stifler's roommate, he's having sex with his girlfriend. Are you cheering at the nudity yet? The film at first seems like it will be about the boys trying to get into the frat house, but then it shifts to them already being in the frat house, but needing to perform certain tasks. Then it shifts to a competition between nerds and the boys. It goes a little "Revenge of the Nerds" on us for a bit and it seems out of place. I honestly do not know what these film is about because it goes all over the place.<br /><br />Most of the comedy seems forced for shock value. Even at the beginning with the Dad showing his son the list of people he has had sex with. The joke is in there somewhere, I think it might be the fact that his wife is not the last name on the list, or it could have been that one of his son's friend's mother was on the list. Either one, it doesn't work.<br /><br />I guess if you haven't guessed it yet, this film is not funny. Nor does it seem to be focused, the story is pathetic and the so called crude humour that the series has been known for doesn't shock. Skip this lame installment and any future ones as well. I do not know why I have seen all the entries in the series, but for some unknown reason they seem to have found their way to my eyes. | 0neg
|
For starters, I would like to say that I'm a fan of the American Pie series. Even though 'the naked mile' and this one are the two worst, this one seems to be the downfall of the whole series.<br /><br />First of all, the best part of the film was that it was an American Pie film, which is always appreciated.<br /><br />However, there are tonnes of bad things to say about this film. First of all, the story has a very stale 'arc' structure. First, there is the introduction of the characters, then the pledging of the beta house and finally the Greek Olympiad. Each of which has exactly 25 minutes of length. Apart from the general staleness of the plot, there is little to no character development, which makes a double whammy of a bad plot.<br /><br />Apart from that, I deeply disliked the stereotyping in this film. That is, showing the jocks as the extremely cool, only-thinking-about-sex guys, and explicitly displaying the geeks as inferior. Also, it shows females only as sexual objects, and males as only wanting to treat the females as sexual objects.<br /><br />Apart from that, the acting was also poor. With perhaps the exception of Steve Talley.<br /><br />So, in the end, a generally horrid film, if seen from a critical point of view. If seen from a teen point of view, I guess that it's better, but this film is rated 18+ in most countries, so it shouldn't really be seen by minors. | 0neg
|
American Pie has gone a long distance from the first. At first i believe the actors don't have a clue what their doing and instead it's just a remake of a college party gone nuts. Story sets out as two freshman college guys (featuring the young stifler) setting out the dreams of attending college just to experience the late night parties, sex and of course the booze. The plot is stupid and comes along way away from the original pie. In fact they didn't once again feature an apple pie somewhere in the film.<br /><br />Luckily i work in a video store and can rent for free. But please remember it is a waste of time unless you enjoy brainless sex films with absolute nudity and insane drinking. I'm a teen myself and i believe even Evan almighty would've been a better choice instead. | 0neg
|
For those with little time on their hands, I'll sum it up quickly, in one word...pathetic. There are a lot of good examples as to why this movie fits perfectly under that description. So much so that you can barely go through 2 minutes of screen time without seeing something completely stupid and pointless forced upon you. Want a fully naked woman in the first 10 minutes? You got it! The reason she appears is so pointless though that it really sets the tone for the rest of this piece of juvenile crap. You can almost glimpse into the deluded minds of the 12 year old boys that wrote this piece of garbage just by watching this crap that they expect the public to actually pay for!!??!!! <br /><br />I've watched many a movie franchise decline over the years, but American Pie;Beta House has to be one of the worst offenders when you consider that despite the average nature of the original movie, it's still a thousand times funnier than this dreck.<br /><br />The plot is predictable, and sometimes you actually feel like you're watching a school play. The things that happen in this movie are so unrealistic that it takes a lot of suspension of disbelief to actually watch it (we're talking Star Wars levels of suspension, like the kind you need to convince yourself Jar Jar is real)<br /><br />The plot is paper thin and mostly the events that transpire are only there to show another pair of breasts or set up yet another pathetic joke. There is no acting talent to speak of, all you get is a bunch of pretty boys trying to make us laugh. And ohhh how they fail!!!! Every gag falls flat and the only thing I laughed at was how socially unaware the scriptwriters appear to be. How else can you explain the bulls**t they try to pass off as a story?<br /><br />They pass up every opportunity to do something worthwhile and entertaining in favour of badly written, lowest common denominator nonsense. The characters have to complete a set number of tasks before they are accepted as members of Beta House, but this is dealt with mostly by a series of very brief montages that imply that they are completing the tasks but we see little to no evidence of it actually happening. Its a very lazy way of telling a story. It also misses opportunities to be funny in doing so.(Imagine say The Wizard of Oz where all the important events happened offscreen instead of on it, and all we see is Dorothy high-fiving the Scarecrow every now and again and saying "Gee that sure was a great adventure we just had back then") Lazy. Lazy. LAZY!!!!<br /><br />The female characters have little or nothing to say. All they do is get naked for no apparent reason and are used as visual props through most of the movie. You braindeads that only seek T&A will not be disappointed, but for that reason alone shame on you. If you buy this on DVD you will be contributing to the downfall of society in your own special way. Congratulations. | 0neg
|
Band Camp was awful, The Naked Mile was a little better, and this third straight to DVD in the American Pie franchise seems the same quality as the predecessor. Basically Erik Stifler (John White) split from his girlfriend after losing his virginity, and now him and Mike 'Cooze' Coozeman (Jake Siegel) are joining Erik's cousin Dwight (Steve Talley) at college. With the promise of many parties, plenty of booze, and enough hot chicks at the Beta House, they only have fifty listed tasks to carry out to become official privileged members. But a threat comes into sight with the rivals, GEK ("Geek") House, led by power-hungry nerd (and sheep shagger) Edgar (Tyrone Savage) offering bigger and better than what Beta have. To settle it once and for all, Beta and Gek go into battle with the banned, for forty years, Greek Games to beat each other in, with the loser moving out. The last champion of the games, Noah Levenstein aka Jim's Dad (the only regular Eugene Levy) runs the show, which sees the people unhooking bras, a gladiator duel floating on water, catching a greased pig, Russian Roulette in the mouth with cartridges of aged horse spunk, wife carrying and drinking a full keg of alcohol (with puking not disqualifying). It all comes to the sudden death, with a guy getting stripper lap dancing, and they have to resist cumming, Beta House win when Edgar cums with a girl dressed as a sheep on his lap. Also starring Flubber's Christopher McDonald as Mr. Stifler, Meghan Heffern as Ashley, Dan Petronijevic as Bull, Nic Nac as Bobby, Christine Barger as Margie, Italia Ricci as Laura Johnson, Moshana Halbert as Sara Coleman, Sarah Power as Denise, Andreja Punkris as Stacy and Jordan Prentice as Rock. The nudity amount is very slightly increased, as is the grossness of the jokes, and I could guess it being rated one star out of five, but I like it. Adequate! | 0neg
|
OK so there's nudity, but hey, there's free porn on the internet for whomever likes it. And its just silly how they forced tits into every frame. I mean i was embarrassed, not from the nudity but from the far-fetchessness of the producers/writers of this piece of crap.<br /><br />The movie is NOT funny at all, its just extremely predictable all the time. There is no plot, no dramatic content at all. This is way waay worse then the other pie-films and they arnt that great either:) If you're really drunk or maybe a 13 year old buy who are really obsessed with tits this might be acceptable, otherwise not. <br /><br />May it forever roth align with crap of the same magnitude with regards Erik the questmaster flash MC | 0neg
|
Let's cut to the chase: this movie is softcore pornography marketed for the masses under a name that the studio is milking every last penny out of the American Pie teat. Period.<br /><br />The whole plot (and that shouldn't imply that there's a whole lot to go around) serves as a vehicle to show the audience more boobs and sex scenes.<br /><br />If you're a Tween guy, and you're too squeamish to purchase actual pornography, then this is the movie for you. Otherwise, the movie doesn't have much to offer at all.<br /><br />The acting is sub-par, the character development is virtually non-existent, and the story is a nonsensical knarl of nudity, binge drinking and pranks (none of which are particularly memorable).<br /><br />Go buy real porn if that's what you want to see, and if not, go watch a GOOD movie. Animal House, Kids, or even the original American Pie are all great cinematic works, and all of them contain heavy alcohol use and nudity.<br /><br />"It's not how much, it's how you use it" | 0neg
|
This was the worst film i have seen for a long time. <br /><br />Not only that it has nearly nothing to do with the other American Pie movies, the story is obvious, flat and absolutely not funny. <br /><br />The girls are nice though, but spending your time watching a cheap soft porno would possibly be greater than watching this film.<br /><br />This film seems to be a very bad made sex ad, made for an audience that is not older than 12.<br /><br />I never visited an American college, but i would seriously doubt that anyone who did could really laugh about any of the scenes.<br /><br />Save your time, do something else. | 0neg
|
So, American Pie: Beta House is the 6th American Pie movie in the series. Although, it really has nothing to do with the original three American Pie movies except some of the characters are supposed to be related to the characters in the original trilogy and Eugene Levy is in it (can't that guy get better gigs?).<br /><br />There is very little to compliment this movie on. There aren't any funny jokes. The acting is painful to watch, especially the girl with the "southern" accent which sounds more like a Canadian's impersonation of a British woman pretending to be a hillbilly by using the word "ya'll." This movie makes me feel like such an idiot. Why didn't I apply to a college where nobody goes to class (but everybody gets good grades), girls consistently take their clothes off in public, everybody has promiscuous unprotected sex without the burden of babies and STIs, and you can ejaculate all over a girl's family photos without her minding? Really, this series has lowered itself to the standards of softcore porn. Maybe for the next one, they'll finally break down and hire Ron Jeremy as the lead. I'm sure they can just tie it in to the series by making his character Stifler's 3rd uncle once removed or something like that. | 0neg
|
Another American Pie movie has been shoved down our throats and this one is the worst one of them all. It doesn't deserve the name American Pie. They should have stopped at "The Wedding".<br /><br />This movie feels like just a stupid porn movie which they slapped the title American Pie on. When i was watching this i felt like i was watching a different series. It doesn't fell like American Pie at all. It has different humor and it is much more rude and has many more sex scenes then the other American Pie movies.<br /><br />I don't recommend it ever. Actually i don't recommend any of the "American Pie Presents" movies. Just stick with the nice original trilogy.<br /><br />2/10 | 0neg
|
Just finished watching American Pie: Beta House and I gotta say, this was such a garbage pile of crap. The first 3 American Pies were hilarious, the last 3 were a joke and should not have been called American Pie.<br /><br />As you figured out from the title of the movie, Beta House, is about a fraternity, freshmen, girls and, the most original part of them all, falling in love. Of course, the guy that has his way with the chicks is Stifler, who, along with his mates, tries to complete another apparently impossible task. It was unrealistic and super fake. Its just really predictable and the plot is so weak. Both sides of the college battle to see who gets the whole thing (something like that) To sum it up: awful acting + dull script + wrong use of the American Pie franchise = total waste of time! This movie is unbearable. I give it a two out of ten, although most of it sucked there were lots of nudity and pretty girls, like 2 funny scenes :) | 0neg
|
First off to get my own personal feelings out of the way let me start by saying that I hate so called comedies where every single character is written and played as being so stupid that you wounder if they're all the result of inbreeding.<br /><br />Now I will say this I did see the first three American Pie movies and while they weren't the most amazing movies that I'd ever seen they were all right (and outright masterpieces compared to the three "American Pie Presents" films), I still feel compelled to ask what the hell were they thinking when they made this movie?<br /><br />I also have a few other questions too.<br /><br />Who thought that this was an acceptable use of studio funds and production resources? <br /><br />who approved the final script (and what was that person smoking when they approved it)? <br /><br />And lastly why did anyone think that it deserved to be released into theaters where the average cost of admission is between 10 and 15 dollars depending on where you live when it should have gone straight to the discount bin at Blockbuster or Wal Mart?<br /><br />There is so much wrong with this movie that I can't write a really comprehensive review of it because it would exceed the maximum allowed words on this forum so I'll just touch on the biggest things wrong with it.<br /><br />The plot is generic uninspired and stupid and characters are all about as interesting as watching paint dry for eighty minutes but the biggest thing that I can see wrong with this movie is the acting.<br /><br />While most of the cast are talentless no namers who will probably be forgotten in a few years,<br /><br />the one and only big name in this movie is Eugene Levy who spends almost all of the time he is on screen with this knowing smirk on his face that says to the viewer "I know this isn't funny and I'm wasting my talents but hey I'm getting payed for it so who cares" he doesn't even try to make any of his jokes funny (he really deserves better than this garbage). <br /><br />As I mentioned above most of the rest of the cast are horrible even though some of them have been in some really great TV shows, Tyrone Savage (from the classic Canadian series Wind At My Back) plays a character who is so unbearable unlikeable and irritating (there are things that he could teach to tropical skin diseases)that you almost wish he'd die a slow and painful death on screen, Christopher McDonald (NCIS, Law & Order) just hangs around on screen and wastes what talent he does have by being in this film.<br /><br />Maybe the next film in this series will just be a soft core porn with a story line so they can get around the MPAA and get an R rating this movie goes all out with pointless nudity vulgarity and pointlessly offencive sexual content that it should have gotten the X rating (the ratings board must have been drunk or on drugs when they reviewed this film for its rating). <br /><br />It's interesting that twenty five years ago when Wes Craven submitted A Nightmare On Elm Street to the MPAA for a rating review they forced him to cut twenty five seconds of footage (I believe that it was part of a death scene that had a silicone casting of a breast in it) to avoid getting an X rating and he had no other choice but to do it or the film wouldn't have been released, <br /><br />but this kind of needlessly offensive trash can get the R rating today because it's all done in the name of comedy, if this movie was a drama or horror film with this kind of content there would have been a huge stink over the content and it would havegotten the dreaded X rating.<br /><br />The last thing that really annoys me is the writing, this movie is written to play out like the wet dream of some twelve year old kid with an extremely overactive sexual imagination its quite juvenile and extraordinarily crass, nearly every expository situation that is supposed to move the corpse that this movie calls a plot along is so telegraphed that any intelligent viewer can see it coming a mile away and and the so called characters are just stereotypes of stereotypes of stereotypes, never mind the often repulsive sexual references and constant unnecessary scenes of deviant sexual behavior it feels like this film was written by some incompetent first year hack in a low rent film school script writing class.<br /><br />the long and short of it is its time to kill this series before it gets any stupider more crass and offensive, this pie is filled with road apples. | 0neg
|
well its official. they have just killed American Pie. The first 3 were absolutely hysterical, but this one and the others have been awful. I mean the story is about two college fraternity's who battle each other for its houses, I mean come on talk about a weak plot, the first three dealt with growing up, change and marriage, which are all worthy points of development in human society.<br /><br />The new Stifler is the biggest joke, I know its hard trying to compare yourself with the Steven Stifler but so no cigar. I give this movie a 3 because there is 2-3 funny bits in the film.<br /><br />The best character in this movie of course is Jim's dad i don't know why he keeps continuing to do these poorly developed films. | 0neg
|
I have to say that I used to be a huge fan of the series. The first 3 were great and the others had their moments, but this new BETA HOUSE is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is a shame since this was a great series and it just keeps getting worse. I know they are made for DVD films but some effort would be nice.<br /><br />There are no laughs, just a couple of good one-liners that will bring a smile if that. There is pretty of nudity and very hot chicks. But neither the sexy stuff nor the jokes really work.<br /><br />To add to all that this is a RACIST film too or as racist of a film one can make without asking to be called racist. I am NOT one of those people who think everything should be politically correct. But the portrayal of minorities is very offensive.<br /><br />I wouldn't waste any time on this garbage. See the previous versions, they will make you laugh not sick. | 0neg
|
To summarize this movie: Without a real plot, this movie consists of 80 minutes of deranged characters either drinking or making bad jokes. The music is just awful, the humor isn't funny and all the female characters slutty idiots or total geeks. It seems to me, that the movie has actually been written by a 14 year old boy, who thinks that drinking is cool, women are designed to please men and all that oppose that view are geeks. Also, the movie has nothing to do with the original American Pie movies, other than a few names and Mr. Levenstein who is a minor character in this one. The only good thing about this movie are the nice looking girls. Don't watch this movie and don't be fooled by the 5.4 rating, because it obviously overrated and doesn't deserve anything above 2. | 0neg
|
This story had a different angle that intrigued me, enough to buy a previously-viewed VHS sight-unseen. That was a mistake.<br /><br />In what could have been a very nice story - about badly crippled people at a hospital, and their various personalities - turned quickly into a very profane soap opera with unlikeable characters.<br /><br />We have "Bloss" (William Forsythe) the stereotype racist white person, who says the f-word every other sentence and is so despicable they didn't give him a first name in the movie. He's a lot of fun to be around. Then, there is "Raymond Hill" (Wesley Snipes), a fast-talking womanizer. Snipes must have liked those fast-talking "hip" arrogant roles because he played in a number of them, like in "White Men Can't Jump." Then there is sweet Helen Hunt playing "Anna" that wonderful caring, loving person who is having an adulterous affair with the leading character in the film, "Joel Garcia" (Eric Stoltz).<br /><br />Yup, this is heartwarming, feel-good type stuff. It just makes my heart melt watching these nice folks. But, if you are one of those who loves sleazy characters portrayed by sleazy people in this sleazy film.....you might really like this! Add in a dose of Hollywood political correctness and there you go! What more could anyone want? | 0neg
|
THE WATERDANCE (1991) The main character of The Waterdance, played by Eric Stoltz, finds himself in a rehab center with some others similarly injured. And there he must face an harsh new life, confined to a wheelchair. It's an interesting, and promising premise, but unfortunately, it fails to deploy. What ensues instead is largely Hollywood schmaltz, with some interesting moments. Certainly the cast (Eric Stoltz, William Forsythe, Wesley Snipes, et al) is brilliant, and perform well here as one would expect, but their talents are wasted. The characters are mainly stereotypes of one kind or another, and most of them are thoroughly unlikeable (the Snipes character being the exception). I suppose this is some kind of attempt to break through people's ideas about the handicapped being "crippled" or "weak", by depicting them, for the most part, as in-your-face pricks, but it makes for an entirely annoying experience. Admittedly it will show you something of what those with permanent disabilities go through, in a way that is not softened or romanticized, which is useful, and a good idea, but while the process being depicted can make one a difficult person to get along with, and that's worth dealing with, it is not part and parcel to that that these characters must be, to varying degrees, despicable. They wouldn't have to be Disneyfied, either; surely there's a middle ground somewhere. By the film's conclusion, the Eric Stoltz character has come to accept his status as a handicapped person, but since he is such a flaming narcissistic monster from the beginning of the film to the end, we couldn't care less. <br /><br />In addition to its character problems, the film suffers from that weird syndrome that so many Hollywood movies suffer from; the syndrome doesn't really have an official name, but you might call it "Inexplicable Forgiveness Syndrome". It goes something like this: characters abuse the crap out of each other, and then without so much as an apology, all is forgiven (an especially obnoxious example of this is in the movie The Breakfast Club, in which one character spends most of the film verbally bullying everybody within earshot; as a result
they love him. In one of the the latest examples, Spiderman 3, supervillain The Sandman lays waste to a chunk of Manhattan, then wails on Spiderman for what seems like about 15 monotonous minutes before being waved off with what amounts to "bye, now"). The most egregious example of IFS in The Waterdance is a sequence in which, after being called the n-word by William Forsythe's racist biker character and his friends in the previous scene, the Wesley Snipes character whoops it up with the same Forsythe character in the next scene, as if nothing had just happened just a short time hence. Again, without so much as an "Oh yeah, sorry about that business back there where I, you know, called you the n-word". It makes me wonder, do these people actually watch these movies before they release them, or do they just film them with their eyes closed, kind of slap them together in the editing room according to scene number, and call it a day's work? | 0neg
|
This really doesn't match up to Castle of Cagliostro. Lupin isn't as funny or wacky or as hyperactive. The scenery and music are uninspired and plot just isn't interesting. <br /><br />The only good thing about this 'un is the nudity (only in the uncut version) provided by Fujiko. It helped spice up some of the tedious scenes. CoC had a formidable villain and set up the movie for some imaginative set-pieces. The locations in TSoTG are not very vivid or engaging. <br /><br />Zenigata, Goemon and Jigen don't even provide decent sideshow entertainment this time. It's like they were just filling a contractual obligation by appearing. <br /><br />The DVD is in full-frame with Dolby Stereo sound. It has a decent amount of extras, including quite a few trailers. But one curious thing. There is no chapter selection on the disc or timecode displayed on the player once inserted. Though you can still skip to the next scene number using the remote. | 0neg
|
I know that movies aren't necessarily supposed to mirror reality, but this one got on my nerves. It perpetuates ignorant stereotypes about "psychological trauma" and mental illness. The "psycho mom" thing has been done too many times before (and usually done better) and much of the rest of the plot is far-fetched as well. The acting was not horrible but nothing to rave about.<br /><br />One highlight: I am a long-time fan of General Hospital and it was a trip to see one of the roles played by former GH regular, Jon Lindstrom.<br /><br />Anyway, if you can overlook the bogus psychoanalytical part of it, in the same way a person must suspend reality / judgment when watching a lot of movies, then this movie might be tolerable. If you have nothing better to do and fairly low standards.<br /><br />I'm sorry I spent my time watching it. | 0neg
|
If you have plenty of time to waste ... it's OK. It moves at a good pace but to pull this movie off it would need to be a little longer with a little more background on the sitter. <br /><br />The acting is OK. Mariana Klaveno as the sitter does the best job and is the most believable.<br /><br />William R. Moses played a pretty good part as the husband.<br /><br />Gail O'Grady, as the wife, had a weak part and the reasons for her going back to work were not developed.<br /><br />The ending is sort of silly. Like most of these sitter movies ... there are parts that are interesting ... but overall it leaves you wondering why you spent the time. | 0neg
|
this movie delivers. the best is when the awkward teenage neighbor tries to bike away from the babysitter and in the background looks like he's never been anywhere near a bike in his life as he attempts not to fall off.<br /><br />but this movie doesn't stop there, when less than 5 minutes later it delivers a scene of nothing but an arm reaching through a fence and into a cooler pulling out a beer. <br /><br />stereotypical grilling dads, several plot lines that go nowhere, and a former seaQuest actress with a bluetooth cell phone all add up to making this the perfect Saturday night at home. | 0neg
|
With Goldie Hawn and Peter Sellers in a movie you figure this one won't go wrong. But what can I say? This was a horrible misfire. The movie is about Peter Sellers as an older gentleman who suddenly finds himself in a relationship with a really strange young not to mention attractive hippie in Goldie Hawn. The movie is incredibly disjointed and I did not understand anything about it. Peter Sellers and Goldie Hawn are very funny people but this movie does not prove it.<br /><br />That song about arabella Cinderella' is pretty cool, but that is it. I only recommend this movie to people that like to watch an extreme novelty movie, this is almost the definition of one. I guess this movie more than anything else is a sign of the times, in terms of it's definite experimentalism and all around unconventionality, the problem is the quality is completely shot and the writing, not to mention the direction is just so out there. <br /><br />Peter Sellers in particular is very hit and miss, he will go from Dr. Strangelove and Being There throughout his career, to dumb movies like this and the Magic Christian, which was very similar to this one in context and style, but that movie did have a few funny moments. This one is senseless, and I am sad that someone as great as Peter Sellers was in this movie. Not recommended for anyone. | 0neg
|
I read that "There's a Girl in My Soup" came out during Peter Sellers's low period. Watching the movie, I'm not surprised. Almost nothing happens in the movie. Seemingly, the very presence of Sellers and Goldie Hawn should help the movie; it doesn't. The whole movie seems like they just randomly filmed whatever happened without scripting anything. Maybe I haven't seen every movie about middle-aged to elderly people trying to be hippies, but this one gives such movies a pretty bad name.<br /><br />All in all, both Sellers and Hawn have starred in much better movies than this, so don't waste your time on this. Pretty worthless. | 0neg
|
Peter Sellers (one of my favorite actors) is mildly amusing in this 1970 turkey, but the script is so lame and insulting that even Goldie Hawn's youth (just after her Oscar win) cannot begin to pull this one out of the mud. As a skirt-chasing celeb in his 40's, Sellers mostly embarrasses himself to the nth degree.<br /><br />A 3 out of 10. Best performance = ? Nicky Henson plays a young study type.<br /><br />I hope Hawn and Sellers were paid well, because I see no other reason for tripe like this in 1970 (a very good year for films - CATCH-22, M.A.S.H., HUSBANDS, JOE, WUSA, FIVE EASY PIECES and many others). You can't win them all! | 0neg
|
Dear me... Peter Sellers was one of the most oddly talented actors there has been. But his choice of films, say, after 1964, was very unfortunate. He didn't seem to realize how to use his talents. He would have been better off working with more of the Kubricks of the film world than the people he did. Of his later films, only "The Optimists of Nine Elms" and "Being There" have impressed me of those I have seen.<br /><br />That said, the Boultings and Sellers had made a few films prior to this that hardly sound that bad - I have yet to see "Carlton Browne" and "Heavens Above!" - at least in the sense of using Sellers well to a degree. But, "There's a Girl in My Soup" really is a poor film and a dire choice on Sellers' part in terms of character. In his films from 1955-64, you can usually expect at least some very inventive twist and always an enigmatic conviction in his roles. Here, you have Peter Sellers trying to play a typical romantic lead. It's almost Sellers playing a Niven cad without the joviality. He certainly does not convince, try as he might, or create an interesting character. He should have left such parts to masters of suavity such as Cary Grant, and concentrated on those intriguing dramatic and comic roles that he was famed for.<br /><br />Hawn and Sellers really do not establish any genuine chemistry; this is no easy, genial romance of the like perfected by William Powell and Myrna Loy. It is very artificial seeming, all the way through - I know that it is part of Danvers' character that he is a dry procurer of ladies, but he doesn't really change from that in a way that convinces. Sellers has a very grating way of playing "charm" as well... this character really has no depth, and really does not gain the viewer's sympathy or interest. Sellers goes through the motions in a way one would not think possible when remembering the magnificence of his shifty, iconoclastic performance in "Lolita".<br /><br />There really is nothing to say about the plot, direction or characters, as frankly they leave little or no impression. This is truly one of the most anaemic, complacent, misguided and lightly dull films I have ever seen. A nonentity of a "vehicle" for Sellers' undisputed talents.<br /><br />Rating:- * 1/2/***** | 0neg
|
Annoying, static comedy with a painfully miscast Peter Sellers as a smarmy, self-centered Casanova who always has his way with the ladies. A major blemish on Sellers' filmography, and, even worse, a film that seems to have been made solely to satisfy the ego of its star. (*) | 0neg
|
Caught part of GEORGE 2 on TV recently, but couldn't get myself to watch it through to the end. Just awful! I can't even remember the plot. All I know is that George and Ursula were not the George and Ursula of the first movie, which was bad enough. There's a lot of scrambling around, but the direction and editing were so shoddy and choppy, it was like watching outtakes or deleted scenes. Having the original voice of Ape the Ape back was not nearly enough to make me warm up to this. GEORGE 2 is probably the single worst sequel I have ever seen, and that is saying something. Jeez, because of IMDb's 10 lines rule, I have to keep typing when I have nothing more to say about this crapulastic made-for-TV sequel. Disney, hang your head in shame. | 0neg
|
There are just so many things wrong with this movie.<br /><br />To begin with, the first twenty minutes of the film could have been compressed into just five or maybe ten. The overall movie is (mercifully) short already, but this could have been made up for by giving a little more attention to the Mean Lion (how did the miss a reference to "The Wiz" on that one?) and working his subplot a little more closely into the main plot. In short, the script had the seed of a good idea, but needed quite a bit of reworking.<br /><br />Second, it could have done without the crude humor. The original also had some that it could have done without, but at least there it was almost an afterthought -- here, flatulence and urination abound.<br /><br />Third, the show is a little too self-aware. The original series had that well enough, as did the first movie, but here it's just way, way too much. The Brendan Fraser in-jokes were just a bit over the top (and why no mention of the "new Ursula"?). Other gags with the Narrator, especially a couple of interactions near the end, also exceed good sense.<br /><br />Fourth, a bit more attention could have been given to the CGI work. In the first it was hard to tell that Shemp wasn't a real elephant (except by behavior, of course), but here the CGI stands out like a sore thumb. Ideally special effects should merely tell the story whether they're good or bad, and they at least do succeed on that count, so it's a relatively small problem, but it's still there.<br /><br />All that said, Christopher Showerman's performance as George is decent enough. It lacks Brendan Fraser's charm, but Christopher only really fails in that specific comparison -- he even managed to give George a bit of personal depth, which should have been a major foul in a Jay Ward-inspired movie but wasn't here. Julie Benz as the new Ursula surprised me as being even better than Leslie Mann in the original.<br /><br />Most other performances were pretty standard, not standing out in my mind as either good or bad. | 0neg
|
When I go to see movies I would stay up and watch it or if I did not like it, I would go sleep, but this was pure crap, I actually got up and walked out!....This was poorly script and put together, I hated it. Also, they should not have taken Brendan Frasier off, he was much better. This was not as good as I had expected, considering that I really liked George of The Jungle 1, and the graphics weren't as good as the first one, for instance, the bird, and when ever he crashed in a tree. I hope that the director of this takes heed, and next movies he make, he needs to reconsider...horrible! I really would like to give Ursla a job well done, as she made the movie worthwhile (until I walked out)...overall I give this movie a 2 out of 10 | 0neg
|
This movie was on t.v the other day, and I didn't enjoy it at all. The first George of the jungle was a good comedy, but the sequel.... completely awful. The new actor and actress to play the lead roles weren't good at all, they should of had the original actor (Brendon Fraiser) and original actress (i forgot her name) so this movie gets the 0 out of ten rating, not a film that you can sit down and watch and enjoy, this is a film that you turn to another channel or take it back to the shop if hired or bought. It was good to see Ape the ape back, but wasn't as fun as the first, they should of had the new George as Georges son grown up, and still had Bredon and (whats her face) in the film, that would've been a bit better then it was. | 0neg
|
Let me start out by saying this movie has 1 funny point at the very beginning with the exchange between the narrator and George: Narrator:Huh? Wait a minute! Who the heck are you? George: Me new George. Studio too cheap to pay Brendan Fraser. Narrator: How did you get the part? George: New George just lucky, I guess. <br /><br />Sadly, that's the only funny part in the entire movie.<br /><br />It was still entertaining...But then again, i'm easily entertained...<br /><br />I wouldn't say this is the worst movie i've ever seen (that title goes to the terribly un-funny Disaster Movie...), This movie falls #7 on my bottom 15 list...<br /><br />If your a small child who is easily entertained, you'll enjoy this movie. If you're a movie-watcher who wants a good, funny movie, You'll end up shooting yourself halfway through this one.. | 0neg
|
666: The Child starts as a plane crashes, the only survivor of flight 666 was a young boy named Donald (Boo Boo Stewart) who is adopted by news reporter Erika (Sarah Lieving) & her cameraman husband Scott Lawson (Adam Vincent) after they covered the incident for Channel 6 news. At first Donald seems like any normal kid but death seems to follow him around, after warnings from a Nun & Vicar Scott begins to believe that Donald is evil & the cause of all the deaths...<br /><br />This straight-to-DVD horror flick was directed by Jake Perez under the pseudonym Jake Jackson & one has to say 666: The Child is really rather poor. Whenever I see The Asylum is responsible for a film I get worried, I get very worried since their track record is awful. They seem to specialise in making &/or distributing low budget horror films which are usually rip-offs of some recent successful big budget horror film & in the case of 666: The Child you don't need a degree in rocket science to realise that it's a complete rip-off to cash in on the recent The Omen (2006) which was released the same year. The script by Benjamin Henry & Austin Laurel is terrible & simply can't match the ambitions of the the Hollywood equivalent, I mean just what exactly does Donald the Antichrist expect to achieve from a middle class family in a small town? It's hardly a great starting point to bring about the destruction of thew world is it? Every character in 666: The Child is some form of the main character's from The Omen, the adopted parents, the Priest who tries to warn them & the sinister babysitter. There's a real lack of incident, there's barely any gore & the plot is poor. I mean Donald killing a dentist because they were trying to fix his teeth is just so random & needless, what were all the disgusting pictures Donald drew all about, where did the babysitter come from & there's just nothing that ties everything together & it's just a disjointed mess that just becomes very boring very quickly. The references to the number 6 also becomes annoying & are very unsubtle.<br /><br />Director Perez does alright I suppose, it's competent if nothing else. There's virtually no blood or gore, there's a few sprays of blood, a cut off hand & someone gets a circular saw stuck in their face but it sounds a lot better than it looks on screen. It's certainly not scary, there's no atmosphere thanks to a throughly bland contemporary setting in a suburban house & there's no tension because we never really know what Donald is trying to do & there fore there's no threat from him.<br /><br />Technically the film is alright, it's reasonably well made but since the actual film is so poor it makes little difference. The acting isn't that great but at the same time I've seen worse.<br /><br />666: The Child is a poor mans The Omen rip-off, I'd sooner watch either the original or the remake over this any day of the week. Not good & definitely not recommended. Followed by the sequel 666: The Beast (2007) which also went straight-to-DVD. | 0neg
|
Well I watched this last night and the one thing that didn't make it completely terrible is that it was straight forward. There was no beating around the bush that this kid was the Anti-Christ. However the movie was just poorly written. For example, they never explained how they made the dentist incident an "Accident" or at the end how the cop just miraculously ended up at the house in time to save the kid without the police even being called yet. The death scenes were just really bad and not entertaining at all. The kid they chose to play the Anti-Christ was boring and they really could've picked a better kid. Just don't waste your time watching this. | 0neg
|
Poor Robert Englund makes another flop and to the expense of Tobe Hooper who usually makes pretty good horror movies but he failed pretty bad at this one. Englund plays the well known Marque De Sade who in the 17th century was enprisoned for his obsession of pain and the pleasure of bringing pain upon himself as well as watching others also be in pain. The story is so confusing with the flip flop from one century to another and I became confused as to what was going on and what was the purpose of this movie. All I saw was a young lady that became entrapped by a strange lesbian who desides to keep her to herself and the young lady became fascinated by this Arabian with alot of money and finds out that he's out to have her killed and then Englund steps in from one century to another claiming to be a descendent of the de Sade and tries to kill her because she reminded him of the Madam Momoselle(spelled that wrong) or whoever it was in the picture above De Sades wall. The movie was terrible, I am surprised at Hooper for hireing Englund in this film and the special effects were so fake and laughable, especially the part about the eyes. Englund tries to make a comeback from his once hit move "Nightmare on Elm St." by using these pull in and out needles to put out peoples eyes. Terrible, absolutely terrible. | 0neg
|
1st watched 8/26/2001 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Tobe Hooper): Scary, yet sadistic(which makes sense) portrayal of a relative of the Marquis De Sade carrying out the same sadistic acts and enjoying it that supposedly his predecessor did. This Tobe Hooper film really doesn't do a whole lot different than his similar in style Freddy Krueger movies with the same star (Freddy himself - Robert Englund) playing a dual role(the Marquis De Sade and his relative). It is also seems like it wants to really poke at Christianity but then loses that in the end much to my chagrin but leaving an inconsistent feel to the movie. Could have been much worse if excesses were taken in sex and violence, but they try to keep this at a minimal despite some disgusting scenes. My final thought is why would Hooper want to make this movie. It obviously took awhile to actually get distributed, then it has to be advertised gruesomely and with Hooper's name in the title to hopefully make some money on his name and his gore. It's obvious this didn't work. | 0neg
|
Normally I would never rent a movie like this, because you know it's going to be bad just by looking at the box. I rented seven movies at the same time, including Nightmare on Elm Street 5, 6 and Wes Craven's New Nightmare. Unfortunately, when I got home I found out the videostore-guy gave me the wrong tape. In the box of Wes Craven's New Nightmare I found this lame movie.<br /><br />This movie is incredibly boring, the acting is bad and the plot doesn't make any sense. It's hard to write a good review, because I have no idea what the movie was really about. At the end of the movie you have more questions then answers.<br /><br />On 'Max Power's Scale of 1 to 10' I rate this movie: 1<br /><br />PS I would like to correct Corinthian's review (right below mine). He says Robert Englund is ripping off lingerie, riding horses naked, etc. The guy that did those things was Mahmoud, played by Juliano Mer, not by Robert Englund. | 0neg
|
I saw this film recently in a film festival. It's the romance of an ex-alcoholic unemployed man who just came out of a big depression and a single middle-aged woman who works in an employment office (INEM). I found the story very simple and full of clichés, taking the 'social' theme of the movie and turn it in to a romance comedy. The lead actor did a good job, he definitely looks like an alcoholic man, but Ana Belen is not believable as a working class woman, she looks, acts and talks very much like a 'high-standing' woman. What I mean is that Ana Belen plays herself. She does it in all her movies anyway. The whole mise-en-scene of the film was very poor. The photography is ugly, not using well at all the panoramic aspect ratio. The dialogue sounds totally scripted and dull most of the times. The comic situations are typical from Gomez Pereira, but in this case they are not funny at all and are resolved poorly. In my opinion this film is not worth watching. Only if you really love Pereira's previous films you might enjoy this one a little bit. Anyway, I walked out of the theater because I felt I was wasting my time. The film-maker was by the door. I wonder what a director feels like when he sees someone walking out of one of his films, specially one that is made to please everybody. | 0neg
|
Will they ever make movies without nudity and sex? This came on at 3:00 on Sunday afternoon and I couldn't believe what they showed. Thank God my son was outside or I would have been freaked out if he had seen the soft/medium porn! Do people who make movies not care who they offend or corrupt? Kids could have been watching after church and that is what they show???!!! The acting was good and I enjoyed the suspense but GEE! There was violence and bad guys but that is to be expected in a western movie. Randy Travis was really good in his role. If the writers, directors and producers would just quit putting on so much uncalled for sex scenes. What has to happen to get them to quit going in that direction? Where can I complain? | 0neg
|
I'm surprised about the many female voters who even give this film better marks. My thought about this film was that the target audience is adult and male. Whipped and tortured women, merciless revenge and a high body count are typical ingredients, introduced into film history by the spaghetti subgenre. The opening and the hand-smashing are DJANGO rip-offs. THE SHOOTER however lacks the style of e.g. DJANGO. Score, acting and cinematography are mediocre at best but if you look for the above mentioned ingredients you are in the right place here. And the actors don't have an Italian accent.<br /><br />4 / 10. | 0neg
|
When I look back on my college days at Ohio University, there will always be one event in which I will remember with fond memories. Channel 23 is OU's local access channel and until the last few years, pretty much played anything they were sent. This included many DIY movies ranging from a guy microwaving marshmallow Peeps and then scanning pictures of them online, to a version of Macbeth starring 8th graders who had apparently just learned how to make squibs.<br /><br />However, the king, in my opinion, of the channel 23 lineup was Midnight Skater. The first time I watched it was around 2AM. I should have been studying. Or sleeping. Or watching regular TV. But no, all that is for pussies. My roommate and I watched Midnight Skater, and when it was complete, I don't think either of us believed that any of the movie had just happened. But sure enough, it was on a few nights later, and we had to come to grips that this movie did, in fact, exist.<br /><br />I could go on and on about how awful it is, but its the sort of awful that makes life worth living. The plot is disjointed, the acting terrible, the everything soul scarring, but by god, if there are others watching with you, its impossible not to have a good time watching it. Its sort of like the first time you hear "Guts" by Chuck Pahalniuk. You hear it, you're disgusted and shaken, but five minutes later, all you want and desire is to make someone else experience the abject horror you just endured.<br /><br />Long story short, Midnight Skater, for all of its epic flaws, makes for some very late night fun. Plus, I desperately want the Theme to Midnight Skater. Kudos to whoever wrote it and sang it. Sweet God I love that song. | 0neg
|
A cast of 1980's TV movie and TV series guest stars (Misty Rowe, Pamela Hemsley,Clevon Little, Seymour Cassel among several others)in the story of a photographer who has dreams about killing his models. Of course the models and other people start turning up dead causing all sorts of complications.<br /><br />Over done not very good thriller has enough nudity and violence to get an R rating but not enough good material to engender any real interest. This is best described as the sort of movie that gave the cable channel Cinemax the alternate name of Skinamax. I really can't see the point of watching this unless you need to see every sleazy thriller out there. (I also have to comment that this film is filled with smoking, to the point that it becomes laughable when anyone lights up) | 0neg
|
Michael Callan plays a smarmy photographer who seems, nonetheless, to be regarded as a perfect "catch" by any woman that runs across him; could this have anything to do with the fact that he also co-produced the film? He's a "hero" whom it's very difficult to empathize with, so the movie is in trouble right from the start. However, it's troubles don't end there. It has the production values of a TV-movie (check out that head made of clay or something, near the end), and the ending cheats in a way that I can't reveal, in case anyone wants to see the movie (highly unlikely). Let's just say that the killer knows more than we were let to know he knows. (*1/2) | 0neg
|
The worst kind of film. Basically, the US Declaration of Independence was replaced with a plasma screen and this fooled the museum's security for several days. Eh?<br /><br />The plasma screen that would theoretically run for less than 2 seconds off that watch battery, assuming it had a low enough internal resistance to deliver the required current, which it wouldn't.<br /><br />It would be possible with a dozen large car batteries and an inverter, but that system wouldn't fit into the case. Sorry to be anal, but this isn't even close to being plausible. The rest of the film wasn't a great deal better and I'm left wondering why the budget couldn't have been donated to charity or me. | 0neg
|
This adaptation positively butchers a classic which is beloved for its subtlety. Timothy Dalton has absolutely no conception of the different nuances of Rochester's character. I get the feeling he never even read the book, just sauntered on set in his too tight breeches and was handed a character summary that read "Grumpy, broody, murky past." He plays Rochester not as a character or as a real person but as an over the top grouch who never cracks a smile until after he gets engaged at which point he miraculously morphs into a pansy. There is no chemistry. The only feeling that this adaptation excited in me was incredulity and also sympathy for Charlotte Bronte who is most definitely turning in her grave. GO AND REREAD THE BOOK. ROCHESTER HAS A PERSONALITY. AND BY THE WAY: A "PASSIONATE" LOVE SCENE DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE TO EAT HER FACE. | 0neg
|
I've probably been spoilt by having firstly seen the 1973 version with Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack so the 1983 adaptation is such a disappointment. I just didn't get any chemistry between the 2 main stars. A lot of staring and theatrical acting just doesn't do it for me, and what was all that about putting Tim in the role of Rochester. Had the casting director actually ever read the book. Very strange! He's a fine actor but Mr. Rochester he definitely isn't! And Zelah was just, well, strange, bit of a mix matched couple. In it's favour the supporting cast were pretty good and the Lowood scenes for me were the best of the adaptation, but overall didn't capture any of the magic of the novel. Certainly wouldn't ask anyone to watch it as a true adaptation of the novel. A real let down! | 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.