text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Considering the limits of this film (The entire movie in one setting - a music studio - only about 5 or 6 actors total) it should have been much better made. IF you have these limits in making a film, how could the lighting be so bad? And the actors were terrible, were talking a hair below the acting in Clerks, except that was an enjoyable movie, this had no substance. Well it tried to, but really fails.<br /><br />It makes attempt to be self-referencing in a couple parts, but the lines were delivered so poorly by the actors it was just bad. And the main character Neal guy, what a pathetic looser. Clearly like 10 people total made this 'film' and they all knew each other, and it probably was a real rock band that they had, but unfortuntly these people really have no idea how terrible they are all around. This was made in 2005, but they all look so naieve it smacks of just pre-grunge era.<br /><br />Thankfully I didn't pay to see this (Starz on Demand delivers again!) but it was under the title "The Possessed" not Studio 666, it doesn't matter what you do to the title, it can't help this. This could have been a much better made movie - there is no excuse for this bad film-making when you have the obvious limited parameters the filmmakers had when they made this, working within those limits you should make the stuff you can control and the stuff you can work with the best you can. Instead they figured mediocrity would be good enough. And that music video, wow that was bad, I fast fowarded through that.<br /><br />So 2/10 is fair, if you are into the whole b-movie crap I suppose you'll go and see this. | 0neg
|
I think that if I went to a first school somewhere deep in the countryside and asked the bottom set of English to come up with a script, it would make more sense than this. I could then go to the first year drama group and they would act it out better than the jokers in this film. This sounds really mean, but I'm certain that they made this as a joke and are entirely aware that they possess (see what I did there?) neither the skills to act or to write anything, ever.<br /><br />Watch this only if you're incredibly drunk, high or in need of a good excuse as to why your decaying corpse was found with slit wrists. I will now go to my fish bowl and collect all of the poo at the bottom. After that, I will mould it into the shape of a disc and put it into my DVD player, fully expecting it to produce something far better than this trumpery.<br /><br />Acting - 0/10 Plot - LOL/10 Breasts - 9/10 | 0neg
|
After a quasi-Gothic, all-fruity music video, the movie starts with Cassidy the lead singer killing herself. In a perfect world that would be that and the end credits would roll. We don't live n that world. The insipid band members decide to go to some clown to contact her dead essence. When I say clown, I mean actual clown. He tell them they're all going to die via Cassidy's ghost (the spirit possesses Dora, one of the band-mates) We couldn't care less as the characters are all boring, vapid, and extremely horribly acted. Written by Adam Hackbarth (an incredibly apropos surname if there ever was one), and directed by Corbin Timbrook (who after The attendant, and Tower of blood, HAS to know that he keeps making crap for a living), this movie s a constant battle between the film's incompetence and the viewer's need to stay awake. Not enough blood to appease gore-hounds, nor enough nudity to satisfy pervs. This movie in fact has absolutely nothing to recommend to absolutely anyone.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Eye Candy: Amanda Carraway gets topless <br /><br />Where i saw it: Starz on Demand | 0neg
|
One of my best friends brought this movie over one night with the words 'Wanna watch the worst horror movie ever?' I always enjoy a good laugh at a bad horror flick and said yes. I had expected your typical cheesy b-slasher but this was beyond B. This is Z-slasher, the lowest of the low. With obviously low budget, extremely bad acting, bad lightning, no plot, really bad so-called 'special effects', shaky cameras and a horrible soundtrack this makes movies like House of Wax look like Oscar-winning masterpieces. The only good thing about it is about 15 seconds of one of the characters getting topless - she had some very nice tits. Most of what I said during this film was along the lines of 'Wow this is actually SO BAD', 'This is the worst movie ever' and 'I'm not drunk enough for this'. So in conclusion: don't waste your time (or money!). | 0neg
|
Whoever wrote the script for this movie does not deserve to work in Hollywood at all (not even live there), and those actors need to find another job. The most dreadful hour and some minutes of my life... and I only kept watching to see if it would get better which, unfortunately for me it did not.<br /><br />Even at the end, the credits gave me anxiety. I guess there weren't a lot of people behind the movie so they had to roll the credits slowly... very slowly.<br /><br />This movie is definitely a great "How Not To Make a Movie" guide. Too bad I can't give a 0. | 0neg
|
This movie is bad. If you are thinking about watching it, there is only one decent scene in the movie, and it lasts about 5 seconds (Amanda Carraway's topless scene). The rest of the movie is horrible. I think high school plays probably have better acting. The plot makes no sense at all. The set was pretty lame, and it wasn't even good to make fun of. It was just dull and very very bad! I watched this on Starz so I thought it had to be at least decent. The mini description sounded like it'd be alright. The girlfriend kills herself for apparently no reason at the beginning of the movie, after you have to watch some horrible music video. The transitions between scenes are VERY abrupt and its like someone just put a ton of clips into a movie without even thinking about how to transition them. Just cuts from one scene to another, no smoothness. Kind of like my random switching from talking about how bad the movie is, to explaining why the plot sucks. The audio gets low at some points, where you can barely hear it, then gets loud with gay 'horror screams' thrown in at random points in the movie. It is the same sound every time. This is now officially the worst movie I have ever seen<br /><br />Acting: 0/10 Effects: 1/10 Storyline: 0/10 Music: 3/10<br /><br />Lame-meter : 1,000,000 / 10 | 0neg
|
I am a MAJOR fan of the horror genre! I LOVE horror/slasher/gore flicks of all kinds. Some of my favorites are the really "good" bad horror flicks. But this movies has NOTHING to warrant it's viewing!! I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about everything that's wrong with it.<br /><br />The script is horrid. The acting is horrid. The FX are not even worth discussing. The "set" is an absolute JOKE!! The sad thing is I think there MAY be some real potential in a couple of the actors, but this vehicle left them NOTHING to work with!!!<br /><br />Suffice it to say I saw it for "free" & feel I was robbed!! The time you'd WASTE watching this would be better spent flossing your cat. | 0neg
|
for the most part, On Demand delivers some pretty horrible horror movies, and only offers other horror movies everyone has already seen, and already have an opinion on. It was either this, or Invinicible (I like Mark Wahlberg movies), which I haven't seen, and I was actually in a movie watching mood, which doesn't happen often anymore because I've already watched all the movies i own a million times, and that's a lot of movies, and I don't have much interest in new movies, and boy, this movie made me regret it. I'm not going to put in any spoilers, I'm just going to tell you that only a FEW of the very FEW actors in this movie ,are half way decent. I think the main girl, the dead one who kills everyone, is very annoying looking, but convincing; I'd take her for psycho bitch anyday, so she fits her roll well, though it is lame. The blood isn't that great, only a few of the kills, or may I say "woundings" are alright, but you don't see much and there are no body part props in the movie to make the injuries look more convincing. Towards the end of the movie I was begging my girlfriend to turn it off, and being a band member, the 'recording' parts weren't very interesting either, though what happened would truly happen when going about recording. I'm done, if you want to watch this, suit yourself. | 0neg
|
Cassidy(Kacia Brady)puts a gun in her mouth blowing the back of her head out on boyfriend Neal(Jason Dibler). Cassidy was the lead singer of a "demons and death" rock band who couldn't shake the sad feelings of her boyfriend's neglect towards her(you know, I can find other reasonable ways to solve this other than putting a bullet through your head). She returns, however, possessing the soul of Dora(Jill Small)her friend who is to replace her on vocals so that the group can finish the album halted by Cassidy's untimely death. But, Cassidy made a deal with the dark one and souls are to be collected..she's consumed by this anger towards mainly Neal, but all the band members or anyone within the music studio get dead when they fall prey to whom they believe is a rather distraught Dora..not Cassidy returning for payback.<br /><br />Lousy micro-budget horror flick looks cheap, has a cheap cast who should make plans in another line of work, and boasts cheap kill-scenes which aren't effective one bit. | 0neg
|
Well, because I'm a musician I thought, maybe I'll check this movie out on TMC, nothing else good on. One of the worst mistakes of my life so far, and it's only half done. I seriously thought it was one of those soft core movies with crappy plot and crappy acting, crappy filming and crappy effects. But nope, I don't even get the pleasure of that. Even the "musicians" weren't very good. I was hoping for maybe some laughs, but I wasn't sure if they were attempting to throw in one-liners or not. But now I have to sit here and watch the rest just until Pulp Fiction starts. Or maybe something better. And now i get to sit here typing until i have 10 lines | 0neg
|
This ranks way up there on my top list of worst movies I've seen so far on Starz on Demand. They seem to pick up every straight to DVD crap-fest they can find and put it on here.<br /><br />Why? Who knows! Apparently anyone with a digital camera and a shoestring budget can come up with a horror movie and get it put on TV. To be honest, this looked terrible from the moment I saw the trailer--but I did give it a real chance.<br /><br />I always try to have an open mind about low-budget movies. Some of the best movies I've ever seen were films that worked around their low budget or in other cases only required that low budget to be great.<br /><br />This is not one of those movies.<br /><br />You know the plot by now, I'm sure, if you're reading this. Either you heard about it on Starz on Demand or for whatever reason you ended up on this page out of boredom. It's about a pathetic and whiny girl we get to know for all of 3 minutes in an incredibly bad "heavy metal" music video. Whoever put it together must have thought it looked really interesting, but it really, really doesn't. Anyway, she kills herself. Then she possesses someone. Then some killing starts. It's really unmemorable and as completely average and boring as possible. When the first gunshot goes off in her apartment it quite seriously sounds like a piece of popcorn popping. Was that the best sound effect they could come up with? I could find a better sound effect to use for free, (with no copyright,) on the internet... right. now.<br /><br />Don't let the other reviews claiming this is a 10 star movie fool you. They are obviously either distributors of the film or maybe even the director trying to con you into thinking this piece of junk is worth buying.<br /><br />Laughable. | 0neg
|
STUDIO 666 (aka THE POSSESSED in the UK) is another sub-par slasher that has the appearance of a straight-to-DVD movie.<br /><br />Whilst many of the straight-to-DVD movies are fast-paced or unintentionally hilarious in the so-bad-it's-good sense, STUDIO 666 is a lamentable failure.<br /><br />At the time of writing, every comment on the first page includes a negative rating and a negative review. Every one of these people have hit the nail on the head.<br /><br />The two people (at the time of writing) who wrote comments with a rating of 10 out of 10 should not be taken seriously. Obviously they've seen few slasher movies and have an even more limited understanding of horror.<br /><br />The only really positive point I can make about this movie is that it does fare better than THE CHOKE and ONE OF THEM, two extremely mediocre slasher movies that I would not wish on my worst enemy!<br /><br />The plot of this movie must have been done hundreds, if not thousands of times. The movie only has a slight twist (and one that is badly handled) to the usual expectations. A depressed singer commits suicide. Soon after, her spirit returns to possess one of her surviving friends. The said possessed friend goes on a killing spree. The rest of the plot really is too bizarre to sum up. You'll just have to see it for yourself, providing your interest has not yet waned to the point of extinction of course.<br /><br />The acting in the movie is very poor for the most part. The actress who played Dora was an exception to this. Her character was always interesting and seductive when she was on the screen. She helps to elevate the movie above similar contemporary efforts. Unfortunately, some of the lines she was given to say were badly written to put it mildly and thus prevent her from saving the movie.<br /><br />The direction was equally poor. The villains did not seem the least bit menacing, every killing was totally devoid of suspense or tension, atmosphere was non-existent and the camera-work was incredibly basic. Some of the special effects (if you can call them that) reminded me of the TV series, GHOST STORIES. Unfortunately for the producers of this movie, GHOST STORIES had intelligently written scripts, believable performances and made superb use of camera angles. Maybe if the producers had watched that TV series closely, they'd have picked up some more techniques that might have saved this excuse for a movie!<br /><br />The music is completely unsuited to the tone of the movie. It's just rock music and not the best examples of this type either. Don't get me started on that awful song played at the beginning!<br /><br />Some aspects of the movie, particularly dialogue, are unintentionally funny. Unfortunately they are not funny enough to move the movie up (or should it be down) to the so-bad-it's-good level.<br /><br />Overall, STUDIO 666 is a mundane mediocre slasher with very little noteworthy aspects. I recommend this only to those who are fans of straight-to-DVD movies and have a desire to see every single slasher ever made. | 0neg
|
As with most of the reviewers, I saw this on Starz! OnDemand. After watching the preview with my girlfriend, she decided not to watch it from how bad the preview watched. I, on the other hand, thought it looked weird enough to warrant a watching. I mean, the design of Dr. Meso alone warranted at least a brief sweep over this title. After watching it, I can say that while there are some interesting aspects to it (namely the browsing over the notebooks and trying to figure out the incomprehensible story), it's best to pass over this one.<br /><br />*Major Spoilers Ahead* After making their first video for their as-yet-unfinished CD, the lead singer, Cassidy, kills herself in an attempt to get her boyfriend Neil to notice her. 3 months later, the band is trying to decide if they're going to finish the album or not. To try and see what Cassidy would have wanted, they go to see an old psychic friend of hers, Dr. Meso, and try to contact her through him. In his card reading, Dr. Meso turns up four straight Death cards for the four remaining band members. Bad times are ahead. (I just wanted to make a point that later in the film, they do explain that the Death card really just represents change. Kudos to them on that at least.) Even without the approval of their deceased friend, they decide to go ahead and finish the album. But while in the bathroom, Cassidy's best-friend, Dora, catches a glimpse of her deceased friend. When another band-mate goes in to check on her, Dora is standing in the dark, requesting his sunglasses. That's when the killing begins.<br /><br />My main problem with the film from the very get-go is that it seems to be heavy stylized to a fault. Too many warping effects, unnecessary zooms, and a plethora of other cheap effects riddle this film. An incoherent storyline doesn't help anything either. While the narrative hangs together for the first part, once Cassidy is resurrected, everything falls apart. We have jump-cuts between Cassidy and Dr. Meso (who mysteriously was able to get into a locked building), which show they are connected in some way or another. However, within a few minutes of that revelation, we find that Cassidy really is an independent being from Meso. She then turns on the guy who had been helping her revenge and he scurries away in a way that calls to mind Jack Nicholson as The Joker. But not in a good way.<br /><br />From this point on, the whereabouts of Cassidy are shown, but there are strange lapses as character moves from place to place almost out of sequence. One scene we see Cassidy standing at a desk, when a character enters in the next, she's nowhere to be found. As he moves behind the desk, we see her at the end of a hallway. Then in another room grabbing the keys (which Neil already has), then back again. Not to mention that from one moment to the next, Cassidy's mood seems to go a complete 180 without a catalyst to it. One moment, she wants to kill everyone (although she's only wounded 90% of the characters) - the next she's apologizing to everyone and walks out the door to die again. Sound confusing? That's because it is. It's a jumbled mess that I'm sure the writer couldn't even figure out.<br /><br />As for the performances, most are particularly wooden. Some though are interesting, but overall this isn't a piece that would be known for it's acting. The story is the driving force behind this piece. | 0neg
|
Julia (Kristina Copeland) travels with her husband Steven Harris (Steven Man) and their baby son Alex to spend a couple of days with her family in Savage Island, an island of their own. The couple expects to resolve their issues along the weekend in the remote island. While waiting for the boat, Julia and Steven meet two weird men in the harbor, and when her brother Peter (Brendan Beiser) arrives, he explains that a family of hillbilly squatters is living in the island. The reckless Peter smoke pot while driving the truck in the night and turns the headlight off to show off; however, he accidentally runs over the young son of the Savage's family, but in the dark he believes he has hit an animal. Later, the Savage family claims Alex as a compensation for their lost son. The Young family does not accept the trade, and they initiate a deadly war between families.<br /><br />"Savage Island" is a very low-budget movie, with a stupid screenplay, amateurish cinematography but surprisingly good acting. The flawed story is totally absurd, and there are many unbelievable situations. For example, how could two men leave two women with the baby alone in the road during the night with the menace of the deranged family? The logical procedure would be going immediately to the continent and bringing police force to rescue Peter. Then the Young family vanishes; Julia and Steven leave their car in the continent and their house and friends, and nobody chases them? Peter calls his sister Julia of Alex when he arrives with the boat in the beginning. There are so many flaws in this flick that I could spend many lines writing about this subject. I believe this film was filmed with a home video camera so awful the images are. The good cast deserved a better material to work. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Ilha de Sangue" ("Island of Blood") | 0neg
|
Savage Island (2003) is a lame movie. It's more like a home video shot with very minimal lighting and horrid acting. Not only that the storyline and script was wretched. I don't know why this movie was made. I have seen a lot of flicks in my time and the ones I really hate are movies that make me angry. This one made my blood boil. The situations were inane at best. If I made a movie like this it would have been a short. Really because those backwood "idjits" wouldn't have been in the picture.<br /><br />Don't be fooled by the cover on the D.V.D. I am an avid watcher of bad cinema. But this movie is virtually unwatchable. I don't mind movies being shot on D.V. but if you're going to do that make the movie enjoyable, not some tired retread of superior horror films (sans Wrong Turn).<br /><br />I have to not recommend this waste of disk. If you come across this one in the rental store pass on by.<br /><br />Movies that make yours truly angry get an automatic 1. | 0neg
|
Much has been written about Purple Rain, the apparent "quin-essential" musician bio movie, however I'm here to tell you that the movie does not deserve it's high praise.<br /><br />First of all let's get one thing straight Prince is a great musician and Music is the one area where Purple Rain excels. Even the score is mesmerising, and if this was shot purely as a concert film it would be a great experience unfortunately it's not and as such the movie has some problems.<br /><br />First of all is the horrendous acting/writing, Prince's character "The Kid" is supposed to come off as some type of mysterious loner of few words unfortunately this just comes off as corny and incensere. A good loner character should at least have some talkative moments, unfortunately Prince's character rarely has over a few words of dialog in the film and it's hard to believe that he'd get the girl this way. Everything just seems a little off here, which is a shame because you can tell this is a character that's terribly conflicted and lives a very complicated live, but we aren't ever allowed to get inside of it.<br /><br />A surprising aspect of this film is just how much of this takes place in concert. Prince and Morris's lives seemingly take a back seat to the performances here, which I guess makes sense from a business perspective, but it's exhausting to have a 2 hour movie where seemingly half of it takes place on stage, especially when the character's back stories get pushed aside for it.<br /><br />So to sum it up: This isn't a very good movie. | 0neg
|
By the numbers story of the Kid (Prince), a singer, on his way to becoming a star. Then he falls in love with Apollonia (Appolonia Kotero). But he has to deal with his wife-beating father (Clarence Williams III!) and his own self-destructive behavior.<br /><br />I saw this in a theatre in 1984. I was no big fan of Prince but I did like the three big songs from this movie--"Purple Rain", "Let's Get Crazy", and "When Doves Cry". The concert scenes in this movie are great--full of energy and excitement. Unfortunately that's a VERY small portion of the movie.<br /><br />The story is screamingly obvious and have been done many times before--and much better too. The subplots are, to put in nicely, badly handled. The love triangle between The Kid, Appolonia and Morris Day was so predictable and tired that I actually became insulted. His wife beating father is needed for the story, but the scenes are so badly handled (in acting and direction) that I couldn't believe it. The script is terrible--lousy dialogue and some truly painful "comedy" routines. And there's tons of misogyny here--The Kid's mother getting beaten; The Kid hitting Appolonia and (for no reason) Appolonia strips and goes topless to swim in a dirty river. Also Williams' and Princes' characters treat women in a horrible manner constantly.<br /><br />The acting is where this movie REALLY fails. Appolonia is sweet and beautiful--but no actor. And Prince is (easily) the WORST actor I've ever seen. His blank face and wooden dialogue delivery are so bad I couldn't believe it. This movie only comes to life during the concert scenes but there aren't really that many. The "dramatic" scenes are so badly acted and handled that they make this movie a chore to sit through. They should have just made this a concert film. I give this a 2--only for the music. | 0neg
|
Okay, I'm not going to critique this film in depth. I note the many elogious reviews in advance of me, and as I generally like Maria de Medeiros, I have been long hesitant to make a disparaging comment - and in such fashion nearly a year has passed. But each time I see that DVD on my shelf, I sense an inner groan. Anyway, let the elogious voices override me! But for other cinephiles like me - beware.<br /><br />Expressed in simplest and gentlest terms, here's my stance:<br /><br />The political turmoil and overthrow providing the backdrop for this film also served as a backdrop for a certain period of my life - via newspapers I read daily in my local middle-European pub. At that time, I followed the newsreports, but never fully grasped what the heck was transpiring. The reporters tended to report either in non-partisan terms, or with a conservatism which frowned upon any groups disturbing the peace or fomenting rebellion against the establishment. Those were times when other winds of unrest swirled through Paris, Berlin, Prague, and various places in the U.S., all of whose issues I understand clearly at the time - but dictatorship or not, my papers tended to treat the govermentment of Portugal simply as the establishment - not as a well-fleshed out "evil empire", to use flippant Star War terms.<br /><br />So, week after week, I read of disturbances, but never found an intelligent editorial that might provide the history behind them, or evaluate the practices and social-economic impacts of the dictatorship, etc.<br /><br />So, in purchasing this film, I had at least two hopes: to finally understand the details leading up to the social unrest, and to enjoy a well-conceived drama. This film gave me neither.<br /><br />The film presupposes that viewers already have ample knowledge and deep emotions regarding the historical facts. And the drama - well, as I said, I want to encourage Maria de Medeiros and the Portugues film industry, but - it was trite and shallow.<br /><br />I obtained my copy of the DVD from France - "Selection Official Cannes 2000 - Un Certain Regard". The box shows smiling clean-shaven actors, the lead giving the victory sign in a fashion that reminds me more of the Playboy bunny. After seeing the work, I wondered what the French could have thought of it - though as a shallow piece of "cinema verite'" with sensitive ethnic content, I can understand their natural inclination to praise it for its "honesty" but...<br /><br />Look at the back of the box: "Un regard chaleuruex sur la Revolution" - a warm regard? Try describing Allende's overthrown and murder with a a "warm regard"! Try it with Czechoslovakia in 1968! Try it with the whole line-up of overthrows, and civil rebellions!<br /><br />Another review: Maria de Medeiros a renoue' avec son pays, son enfance et son histoire." Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish! At least for me.<br /><br />I love Portugal. In all of Europe, Lisbon, Barcelona and Prague are my favorite cities. But my love for a city and a country doesn't flesh out a vacuous film. I'll hang on to my ancient VHS tapes of Capas Negras and A Cancao de Lisboa - meanwhile, I'm stuck with a zone 2 by the above title that might as well go in the trash. | 0neg
|
I know that some films (I mean: European films), that are very bad films, are being regarded as great cinema by certain "critics", only because they're non-American. I saw the 8.1 IMDB score for this film and noticed the fact that this was being selected for certain big festivals. Don't let this fool you! Unless you're one of those people that likes mind-numbing films like this, and call it great art afterwards, skip it! The film contains one hilarious scene after another (a similar, Italian, film popped into my mind, the terrible PREFERISCO IL RUMORE DEL MARE (I prefer the sound of the sea)). The problem with these films is that they're not only boring, like some other strangely praised films, but that they almost play like camp. I mean, let's face it, the acting is horrible (I mean: soap opera-level), the story has not one surprise (this has been done endless times before, connecting several storylines: SHORT CUTS, MAGNOLIA, PLAYING BY HEART, only much better), not one realistic character in it (some true freak-seeing along the way, notice the hilarious zombie-like daughter), and so on and so on.<br /><br />As if that's not enough, the film is 135 min. (count it!) long, and at the end the director opens his can of sentimentality. After a film with such hilariously bad dialogue and scenes that made the public at the preview screening laugh at so much incompetence, well... This is an insult to cinema, and only receives high ratings because it happens to be in "another" language, in this case Spanish. Strange world we live in...3/10 | 0neg
|
My husband and I are the parents of an autistic little boy who lives in the same township as the screenwriter of this movie. We were very upset that the JCC is bringing this movie to its Jewish film festival because of the way that the mentally disabled character Frankie is portrayed. We went to see this movie at the local theater when it came out. We demanded out money back. We would encourage the screenwriter to donate a portion of the funds to the JCC's Achad program to apologize.<br /><br />We did not like seeing Frankie - a mentally disabled and perhaps even autistic teenager - as part of a joke in which he keeps dropping something to look at the nanny's breasts.<br /><br />There was no point to Frankie's character other than to say "hey, being mentally disabled is funny." Challenges like Frankie's are a serious matter. Families like mine are truly suffering.<br /><br />The screenwriter needs to explain herself. Does she know families with disabled kids? Does she see the families with disabled kids week after week at the JCC pool? | 0neg
|
I went on a visit to one of my relatives a while back, and we popped by a theatre, so we'd thought we'd go in and give this film a go. What a mistake! This film is awful in every department. I'd never heard of the film before, and literally everyone still hasn't. No wonder, this is as rank as it gets. It's a comedy, so it says, well the only thing funny is the ability, or lack of it, of the director to make such a film. Getting so close to Christmas, this should be titled how to under-cook a turkey in nearly one and a half hours - or however long it was, as I walked out. At the end of the film, you'll come out feeling as though you've been food poisoned on a sick turkey, and regret you wasted your time on such dribble. Who knows why such things get made. Some people had walked out from the theatre before the film was well over, and I blame myself for not walking out a lot earlier. It really annoys me that you pay good money to see something decent, and all that you come out and see is a poor TV movie that should be showed at 2 o'clock in the morning, in fact, it's that bad, day time TV shouldn't be showing it. What else can a say...probably not enough bad words could do it justice. | 0neg
|
Just saw the movie this past weekend, I am upset, and disappointed with it. Basically, the movie tells you that immigrants, the ones from former Soviet Union especially, come to this country, bring everyone they can with them from the old country, and invade and take over what Americans have been working for. Which is a very wrong way of looking at immigration, and a much worse way of telling people about it. That's the main thing. Another thing, the overall writing, directing and filming is on the level of village amateurs. The actors did pretty well, but it wasn't up to them save this bunch of crap. A few jokes were funny, but most were bad and cheesy. Couldn't wait to get out of the theater, want my money back. | 0neg
|
This is a movie which attempts a retelling of Thai history, set in the ancient city of Ayutthaya. I decided to watch this film because I thought it was along the lines of many Thai films I've watched and enjoyed, one that has Thai actors speaking Thai and martial arts craziness. Well, it's none of that. This film is shot entirely in English, is chock full of Anglo actors, and has production values so terrible it is laughably bad....but not funny! Who can we blame for this rubbish? The acting, dialog, and most of the sets were quite bad. Some of the fight scenes looked like they were choreographed by the local high school drama club. The special effects were also mostly bad, but a few were just cheap animation patched onto the screen that provided an especially cheesy effect. It has one large, epic-style outdoor battle scene, where a few thousand extras get to run across a field in costume, but when we see the two armies collide in combat--HA! What a joke! The film does feature a couple of beauties. What a pity they didn't show a little more skin. At least that would have been something for the guys to appreciate. Don't bother. | 0neg
|
THE KING MAKER will doubtless be a success in Thailand where the similar (but superior) 'The Legend of Suriyothai' set box office records. The film directed by Lek Kitaparaporn after a screenplay by Sean Casey based on historical fact in 1547 Siam has some amazingly beautiful visual elements but is disarmed by one of the corniest, pedestrian scripts and story development on film.<br /><br />The event the picture relates is the arrival of the Portuguese soldier of fortune Fernando de Gamma (Gary Stretch) whose vengeance for this father's murderer drives him to shipwrecked, captured and thrown into slavery and put on the bloc in Ayutthaya in the kingdom of Siam where he is purchased by the beautiful Maria (Cindy Burbridge) with the consent of her father Phillipe (John Rhys-Davies), a man with a name and a past that are revealed as the story progresses. There is a plot to overthrown the King and Fernando and his new Siamese sidekick Tong (Dom Hetrakul), after some gratuitous CGI enhanced choreographed martial arts silliness, are first rewarded by the King to become his bodyguards, only to be imprisoned together once Queen Sudachan (Yoe Hassadeevichit) reveals her plot to kill the king and son to allow her lover Lord Chakkraphat (Oliver Pupart) to take over the rule of Siam. Yet of course Fernando and Tong escape and are condemned to fight each other to save the lives of their families (Tong's wife and children and Fernando's now firm love affair with Maria) with the expected consequences.<br /><br />The acting (with the exception of John Rhys-Davies) is so weak that the film occasionally seems as though it were meant to be camp. The predominantly Thai cast struggle with the poorly written dialog, making us wish they had used their native Thai with subtitles. The musical score by Ian Livingstone sounds as though exhumed form old TV soap operas. But if it is visual splendor you're after there is plenty of that and that alone makes the movie worth watching. It is a film that has obvious high financial backing for all the special effects and masses of cast and sets and shows its good intentions. It is just the basics that are missing. Grady Harp | 0neg
|
Evidently when you offer a actor enough money they will do anything. I am not sure how much John Rys-Daves got, but most of the money he made should go to his fans as an apology for even being associated with such a ROTTEN movie. The special effects were worse then effects from the 1950's B movies and the acting of the rest of the cast was even worse. As to how bad the acting was a child gave the second best performance in my opinion. The English was terribly accented and I think no one could really even speak English they just memorized how the words should sound instead of memorizing the script and trying to make their character both "life-like" and real. | 0neg
|
This movie seemed to have it all going for it with good camera, sound, film, sets, music, costumes ... but drum-roll, Gary Stretch spoke! I don't know if it was his poor acting or simply a bad script, but would say it was both. Considering the casting of him in this role, I found it difficult to root for him even to the very end. I wished he'd have died in battle or one of the sword/knife scuffles.<br /><br />Then, the tinder for the plot to kill the king was because the king didn't have dinner and sex with his Queen? Pretty lame. And to go to the extreme to kill her own son? And to then push up her lover as succeeding King? I see a thread or two here and there of historical bytes, but the manner in which this was all presented was farcical.<br /><br />I don't recognize Gary Stretch from anything else, but he was dreadful. I read another user's comments about audio being dubbed, but don't think his was dubbed ... after all, he speaks English, right? It really was awful. The lines were read right off the coroner's table ... flat-line. It could be he just doesn't have the voice to carry tone fluctuations.<br /><br />Aside from this, I did watch it to the end, so the movie had at least an "interest." It could have been more if the script/lines and casting had been given more work. The scenery and filming crew along with very good quality film is what really made this movie above all else. The cast and story were all secondary. I give the film crew a 10. | 0neg
|
Unfortunately, this has been showing on Star Movies here in Thailand for the last week or so. It's complete rubbish acting. As another member said, this movie is a good example of 'how not to act.' I haven't seen a movie so poorly acted in a long time. The actors (can you call them 'actors'?) are completely flat and deliver their lines with the passion of a dead dog. I would say that in order to truly understand how bad the acting is, you would have to see the movie... but that would be akin to torture.<br /><br />I cringe as the leading lady delivers her lines, and the rest of the cast with their accents (fake or contrived) is equally heinous. Another actress with the fake British accent was pretty, yes, but good lord was her accent terrible. Mix that with her (lack of) acting and you have a disaster. She should just have said nothing and I could have accepted her as the pretty girl. Oh my, we just got to the scene where the leading lady's lover says "Really me?" after a forced crying scene from her. Laughable. No, really, I just laughed out loud.<br /><br />The sets and the art directors offer some saving grace to the film. Some of the sets are colorful and some of the scenes are rather nice (minus the actors).<br /><br />The old magic potion lady? What?! Another member mentioned the 'modern' love song that was in the movie. Totally inappropriate for a period piece set some 500 years ago.<br /><br />I understand the movie was considered 'Big Budget' in Thailand at the time of it's production. I would be seriously upset if I were the producer of this movie. Just goes to show that money does not necessarily make a good (or even mediocre) film.<br /><br />I would give the King Maker a 1 out of 10, but the costumes and sets make save the film from such a rating. 2 out of 10. | 0neg
|
The King Maker is a film about a series of real (citation needed) events that occurred during the Portuguese Occupation in Indochina.<br /><br />Although the costumes and art direction are commendable, the movie still fails to impress the viewer. The acting, in particular, was extremely poor. Some of the actors are trying hard to let tears down and the accents, both real and fake, are extremely irritating. The storyline was also too dumb and too stupid to be true and it seemed more like a history lesson. The movie couldn't even capture that sort of regal and century-old air and it looked more like a botched attempt to make an Asian version of Elizabeth.<br /><br />Final say? Costumes and art direction give the film a breath of fresh air, but the execution was extremely poor and the actors couldn't even give natural bursts of emotion. In short, the movie sounded more like hullabaloo than a script. | 0neg
|
This was the worst acted movie I've ever seen in my life. No, really. I'm not kidding. All the "based on a true story/historical references" aside, there's no excuse for such bad acting. It's a shame, because, as others have posted, the sets & costumes were great.<br /><br />The sound track was typical "asian-style" music, although I couldn't figure out where the "modern" love song came in when Fernando was lying in his bed thinking of Maria. I don't know who wrote & sang that beautiful song, but it was as if suddenly Norah Jones was transported to the 1500s.<br /><br />The Hershey syrup blood in Phycho was more realistic than the ketchup spurted during the Kwik-n-EZ battle scenes.<br /><br />But the acting. Oh, so painfully sad. Lines delivered like a bad junior high play. If Gary Stretch had donned a potato costume for the County 4H Fair he may have been more believable. Towards the end he sounded more like a Little Italy street thug. At times I half expected him to yell out "Adrian!" or even "You wanna piece of me?!".<br /><br />Favourite line: When the queen says to her lover (after barfing on the floor) "I'm going to have a baby." He responds "A child?" I expected her to retort "No, jackass, a chair leg! Duh." | 0neg
|
This is just a bad movie. With what seemed to be quite a nice budget it had potential to be much better. It almost were. With the heroine beautiful almost like Salma Hayek, hero fighting almost like Jackie Chan, battles and duels almost like in Crouching Tiger..., music almost like in, say, Conan... etc. Almost. But in the end it's just dull and it is hard to find anything interesting in it. Maybe apart of John Rhys-Davies flying in duel like those warriors in Hero or before-mentioned Crouching Tiger... I am really ashamed of poor old John. He is after all quite a good actor and deserves much better. So as you - so if you still have a chance just watch something else. | 0neg
|
Up to this point, Gentle Rain was the movie I found the worst in history. It has been supplanted by this 'blockbuster' out of Asia. It has one "star" and it is John Rhys Davies. He is way out of shape to be the swashbuckling, magical flying baddie he is cast here. The rest of these people couldn't act their way out of a junior high school play. No clichés were missed in the dialogue, and the special effects were phoned in as often as possible.<br /><br />It is fairly easy to see that somebody in Asia had some bucks and needed to create a vehicle for some actors they wanted to throw money at. Or maybe it was a director or a writer that needed a credit. My guess is that any career with this movie in it's credential<br /><br />Do yourself a major favor and don't watch this movie. A hundred Thanksgivings couldn't consume this turkey.<br /><br />The one funny scene was unintentional. The brother of the King appears on the scene. The king? A handsome, older, short Asian actor. (Bad actor.) The brother? A six foot European. (Also a bad actor.) No excuses were made for this. They just expected us not to notice that this poor man's Jet Li's brother was a wannabe Pierce Brosnan in a cheap dimestore "Injun" wig right out of an old western movie from the forties. | 0neg
|
Warning Spoiler. . . I have to agree with you, it was almost there. This was such a bad movie, about such and interesting true story. It had such promise, but the acting was ridiculous at best. Some sets were beautiful and realistic. Others are something out of a theme park. I found myself laughing as I watched, what was suppose to be, serious scenes. I really wanted to like this movie, but I couldn't. The best part was the fight between friends that ended with the "King" dying. I liked the Queens' punishment. And, the final shot made a beautiful picture, though. There are so many better movies to watch. I don't recommend this. | 0neg
|
The movie was to be shown here in Bangkok with all the fanfare and even in the theater, it failed miserably.<br /><br />Apparently the story writer just don't hold water. Something was definitely missing. In my opinion people must have a reason why they watch it other than historical glimpse of the past. Accuracy of history is not what we look for in entertainment.<br /><br />The movie just lack any substance. The only way to do this movie right was somehow make changes where it stands as some kind of a legend instead of just a story. And a legend will have certain elements that tries to tell you something that people have forgotten through time, such as the meaning of sacrifice, nationalism, etc. It is called the central theme.<br /><br />The movie fails to answer, why would I watch it anyway?<br /><br />At least some strange legendary Flying Elephants, psychic king, or the eccentric king such as "The King and I" would have been lovely, something would have added greatly to the movies' appeal. I guess there was no appeal other than a plain vanilla movie. <br /><br />Once you got the appeal, then the story is the next thing we concentrate on. In marketing terms, we call it "must see". Upon hearing the title of the movie people would say, Oh, I must see it. Now where's the appeal in Kingmaker? Why not just redo the title and call it, "How NOT to be a King?" and make a black comedy of the old Siamese days, to the style of "Dr. Strangelove". That would have been much more interesting. Narrative-like experiences of the foibles of the King from first persons goofs off would have made the movie extremely funny. <br /><br />Most movies today have that "must see" appeal, such as Spiderman, Men X, these titles speak for themselves. If they don't have familiar characters, some other movies such as, The Island, had an appeal itself when the advertising asks "Do you still believe there is an Island?". <br /><br />Or for the movie, retitled "How NOT to be a King" might ask the question, "So do you still WANT to be a King?" <br /><br />Parhat | 0neg
|
Hollywood Hotel was the last movie musical that Busby Berkeley directed for Warner Bros. His directing style had changed or evolved to the point that this film does not contain his signature overhead shots or huge production numbers with thousands of extras. By the last few years of the Thirties, swing-style big bands were recording the year's biggest popular hits. The Swing Era, also called the Big Band Era, has been dated variously from 1935 to 1944 or 1939 to 1949. Although it is impossible to exactly pinpoint the moment that the Swing Era began, Benny Goodman's engagement at the Palomar Ballroom in Los Angeles in the late summer of 1935 was certainly one of the early indications that swing was entering the consciousness of mainstream America's youth. When Goodman featured his swing repertoire rather than the society-style dance music that his band had been playing, the youth in the audience went wild. That was the beginning, but, since radio, live concerts and word of mouth were the primary methods available to spread the phenomena, it took some time before swing made enough inroads to produce big hits that showed up on the pop charts. In Hollywood Hotel, the appearance of Benny Goodman and His Orchestra and Raymond Paige and His Orchestra in the film indicates that the film industry was ready to capitalize on the shift in musical taste (the film was in production only a year and a half or so after Goodman's Palomar Ballroom engagement). There are a few interesting musical moments here and there in Hollywood Hotel, but except for Benny Goodman and His Orchestra's "Sing, Sing, Sing," there isn't a lot to commend. Otherwise, the most interesting musical sequences are the opening "Hooray for Hollywood" parade and "Let That Be a Lesson to You" production number at the drive-in restaurant. The film is most interesting to see and hear Benny Goodman and His Orchestra play and Dick Powell and Frances Langford sing. | 0neg
|
This movie serves as a timely warning to anyone who thinks they can both write and direct their own movie. Face it, you can't. Because that way there's nobody around to tell you when you hack great holes in your plot, have meaningless transitions, trite, unmemorable dialog and manage to turn a fairly cool Korean legend into a steaming pile of celluloid turd.<br /><br />I wanted to like this movie as a trashy popcorn movie, really I did; I like lots of crappy movies. But once I've been forced to ask myself what the hell just happened and WHY, DEAR LORD, WHY? more than a few times, I really can't take it any more.<br /><br />Also, I would love for someone to explain how LA became Mordor for the last scene. | 0neg
|
This movie was horrible.<br /><br />They didn't develop any of the characters at all and the storyline was played out horribly. It was a definite sleeper. You'd expect the action scenes on a movie like this to be its strong points but D-Wars surprises you with even a let down in that department. <br /><br />Also, the acting was just a step above the level of a low budget porno flick. And I seriously mean that.<br /><br />I was actually happy to see the end credits on this one cause it was just that bad!!! Please, whatever you do people, don't waste your time and money on a crappy movie like D-Wars. | 0neg
|
This movie is likely the worst movie I've ever seen in my life -- surpassing the previous most god-awful movie, "Spawn of Slithis," which I saw when I was about 10.<br /><br />Bad acting, stilted and ridiculous dialog, incomprehensible plot, mishmashed cut scenes, even the music was annoying. Did I leave anything out? Well, the special effects weren't bad -- but CGI does not a decent movie make.<br /><br />I can't believe I actually spent money to see this movie. If anyone has the contact info for Hyung-rae Shim (the director), please forward it to my user name "at gmail," and I'll contact him to personally demand a refund. | 0neg
|
I went into this movie with high hopes. Normally, I'm not too picky about my movies and creature movies are *always* fun to watch, or so I thought. I'll list the good parts of this movie: -The creature effects. All of the creatures were well-done, their movements were realistic, and they fit into the other imagery well. To be honest, the creature effects were the ONLY reason I gave this movie a 2 rather than a 1. Now, the bad things: -The acting. Good Lord, I've seen bad acting, but this movie takes the cake. Not a single one of the characters is even *close* to believable. It's like the director sent out a casting call and picked all the worst try-outs from it. I tried very hard not to giggle too loud, cause I didn't wanna upset anyone else in the theatre, but the acting really was THAT BAD. -The storyline: The entire story is full of plot holes from beginning to finish. You can pick at least 5 plot holes out of any given 30 minutes of film. The plot holes, of course, are complimentary with the cheese. This is probably one of the most clichéd, not thought-out, and outright dumbest stories I've ever seen put on screen since I had the grave misfortune of sitting up one night and watching Parasite on the SciFi channel. -The dialogue: This is a world where everyone says the cheesiest and most clichéd thing they possibly can, at every chance they possibly can. In this world, it seems like every line has been spoken before in at least 30 other low-budget creature movies. It is the world of cheese and cliché. -The special effects. While the creature effects were downright awesome, the special effects fail miserably. Yes, they are better than those seen in other movies, but a lot of it is in the presentation. And this movie has no presentation whatsoever. It looks kinda like the special effects used on the Power Rangers TV show, to be honest. To sum up: Dragon Wars is worth neither your time nor your money. The concept is good, but it is trapped in the bad directing, acting, dialogue, and cheesiness of the film. Wait til the next big monster movie comes out. It's gotta be better than this, cause Dragon Wars is absolutely horrible. | 0neg
|
How this movie got made with a supposedly $70 million budget and without being completely retooled is beyond me. The storyline and dialogue are beyond amateurish. Characters say things no real person would ever say and almost never react to things that were said before. No one seems to be grounded in the real world. The acting of the leads is fine given that the writing is such a dud...but several actors in supporting roles really drag the production down. The hero's hair probably should've gotten its own credit, it was so oddly attention- grabbing...not to mention that it gave one of the better performances in the pic. Finally, for a movie about L.A. being besieged by giant reptiles, this film is shockingly boring. What a shame! If you do see this, your mind will be constantly racing, thinking up ways that you could have taken the SFX scenes and built a far better movie around them. Sadly, it wouldn't have taken much. | 0neg
|
First off, I have no idea how this movie made it to the big screen. Its not even the low budget SCI-Fi channel movie, its just awful. Me and my friend who love action movies, Independence day, Jurassic Park, LotR, etc. went to see this movie expecting this movie to me a Transformers with dragons, mindless entertainment. All we got was a mindless hour and a half. The CG was not as bad as I was expecting, but the plot is so awful along with the acting, it made up for it. Its basically a Chinese legged of dragons returning every 500 years...Sounds like a good remake of Rain of Fire? No, The plot tries to be deeper than it should be leaving not only plot holes, but with magic, and a very small actual war between dragons(rather big snakes) it just gets ridiculous. The director attempted to add a bit of humor in the movie which fail. Me and my friend laughed through the whole thing(along with all 5 of the audience), and cant believed we spent money on this. The short trailer on TV makes up for most of the action while crap makes up the rest. I've seen a lot of B movies like Reptilian, The Cave, Spider, and others, but i have to say if you want a non stop laugh for an hour, watch this.<br /><br />Story: 1/10 CG: 5/10 Acting:3/10<br /><br />I don't drink...but it would have helped before watching this movie | 0neg
|
I went in to see D-War on a whim and with very low expectations. The movie failed to meet them.<br /><br />I don't mind stories that stretch credulity - remember Reign of Fire? - but I do expect them to be internally consistent. This film leapt from howler to howler without pausing for breath, all interspersed with special effects that lagged far behind the likes of LOTR or even Godzilla.<br /><br />A shape-shifting mystic warrior from Korea, curiously metamorphosed into a Caucasian antique dealer and popping up like deus ex machina to get the hapless protagonists out of their latest mess. A special agent from the FBI who seems to be completely boned up on ancient Korean folklore because of the Fed's excellent "paranormal division" - which has gone unremarked up to this point. Lovers kissing on deserted beaches where one exclaims "I never meant for this to happen." A reincarnated pair of long dead Koreans who "died like star-crossed lovers." Mystic pendants, faceless hordes of robotic soldiers (that owe a lot to Peter Jackson's orcs) and a serpent who wastes so much time roaring that every time its chosen prey is within reach something comes along to distract it.<br /><br />The dialogue is appalling, the acting wooden and the effect of the whole was, to be honest, tedious. However, for me the crowning moment was at the end, after the finale, when the music for the closing credits was - Arirang! This is rather like Akira Kurosawa closing "Ran" with a karaoke rendition of My Way - and let me be clear that I am in no way comparing director Shim to Kurosawa.<br /><br />In short, a self indulgent, lackluster collection of clichés and narrative non-sequituurs which may appeal to the sense of the melodramatic so prevalent in Koran popular culture but should not be worth the price of the ticket to any serious movie goer - or even a not so-serious movie goer. I would suggest that this bypass the movie theaters altogether and go straight to video, but I'm not even sure that it's worth that much. | 0neg
|
...there's no one else watching the movie. My husband and I went to watch it last night. It's just a small theater, but there's usually a decent amount of people there. Not this time! My husband and I were the ONLY people watching Dragon Wars last night! Now we know why.<br /><br />The movie was by far one of the worst I've ever seen. Yes, the CG was good, but that was it. The acting, script & dialog, directing, editing, etc. was God-awful! Since we were alone in the room, we felt free to talk during the movie. That is, we talked about how bad it was, that it reminded us of The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, Godzilla, Mortal Combat AND The Lord of the Rings. It was like we expected to see Rita and Lord Zed portraying commanders of Sauron's army.<br /><br />The creatures were ridiculous. You can't just introduce legions of dino/dragon/lizard things loaded down with cannons without explanation. The Lord of the Rings has a wide spectrum of characters, but it introduces and develops them over 3 movies, not in an hour and a half.<br /><br />The scene transitions are horrible. I didn't fall asleep during the movie, but even though it was an overly simple plot, I found myself getting lost in the plot holes.<br /><br />The characters were caucasian Americans, but spoke almost with broken English because of the badly written dialog in the script.<br /><br />The final scene that could have redeemed some value of the movie...failed. Ethan didn't cry when Sarah died...though he hadn't known her for very long during THIS life anyways. He didn't seem too upset to be left in "Mordor", not knowing where he was or how to get back. We couldn't for the love of God figure out where he was or how he got there either, but if he wasn't upset we shouldn't be either.<br /><br />Oh, and why did the dress that Sarah's spirit was wearing look like she borrowed it from Queen Elizabeth? One more thing...all 3 of the main hero characters were reincarnations brought back to finish the job. Sarah completes her task and moves on to the afterlife. Jack does this as well. Then why does Ethan get screwed? He's left alone, without the girl, without a map/compass/helicopter to help him get back. What's he supposed to do? Send smoke signals? And IF he gets back home, does he just go back to his job? He should have been given the same mercy of getting killed out of the movie that the other heroes had.<br /><br />Don't waste your time or money on this movie. We only stayed til the end because we'd paid for it, but as soon as the credits hit, we were out the door. | 0neg
|
Everyone does things that they later regret. Things that they wish they could blame on drugs or alien possession. Things that although seem rational at the time, later reveal themselves to be engraved invitations for suffering and endless recriminations of stupidity.<br /><br />For some people it is signing the note for the new Hummer, for others it is picking up a homicidal hitchhiker, for still others it is sending their bank account information to third world millionaires mysteriously strapped for cash.<br /><br />For me it was a film.<br /><br />D-War: Dragon Wars In hindsight, I should have guessed how environmentally friendly and thoroughly recycled this movie would turn out to be from its stuttered and repeating title. But with my willing suspension of disbelief intact, and a naive faith stemming from the cool looking poster in the lobby, I really wanted this film to work. Sadly, by the time the old man in the pawnshop explained the entire backstory, fifteen minutes into the picture, I had the sudden, sinking revelation that comes from knowing every plot point of a still unseen film. And worse: I knew just how badly every point would all suck.<br /><br />Let me be perfectly clear here, the English language lacks sufficient nuance and depth in the field of ultimate evil to properly describe just how bad this film really is.<br /><br />As for knowing all the twists of movie, I was wrong. In the spirit of the old Godzilla films, whose scales this one is not worthy to fill, it conveniently sprouted extra sub-plots every time the main characters were threatened by the specter of meaningful dialogue.<br /><br />It was infested with close calls, miraculous escapes, and concentrated deposits of poorly explained angst.<br /><br />This film is what would happen if you gave the produces of the Mighty Morphing Power Rangers access to the national defense budget. And lots of liquor.<br /><br />Let me try to explain.<br /><br />Imagine you could get a hold of all the coolest-looking set pieces from successful action movies of the last decade: First take the rasta-talking army of amphibians from Star Wars Episode One and remove their Prozac until they are ready to club Navy Seals.<br /><br />Next, take close approximations of Kira Knightly and Tom Cruise (You can even call him Ethan as a "subtle" nod to the Mission Impossible franchise.) and give them lots of film noir narration, so no one get confused while trying to follow the wading-pool depths of their thoughts.<br /><br />Finally add a raspy-voiced villain in pointy armor worthy of a Lord of the Rings yardsale and a couple of giant cobras, angry at having their scenes deleted from latest edition of King Kong, and lay them all out in no particular order in modern day Los Angeles.<br /><br />Now run to the drugstore to find something for your sudden migraine. When you return, puree these ingredients until any overlooked hint of originality is dissolved into a homogenized mass of cheese and serve semi-gelatinous.<br /><br />At several points during this picture, I found myself saying out loud, "Make the bad movie stop," and breaking into tears.<br /><br />To call this a B-movie would be giving it an undeserved promotion. After summer school, and a lot of physical therapy, it might possibly pass for a C level film if you could somehow sleep through most of it.<br /><br />In short, if you ever find yourself with money and brain cells to burn, and the need to punish yourself for hideous, unspoken sins against humanity, Dragon Wars might just be the film for you. | 0neg
|
I knew it wasn't gunna work out between me and D-wars from the moment we met. First its title was lazy. D war. Like writing out Dragon was too much for them. Also... you really can't be that blatant with your title unless your Blue Monkey. Blue Monkey can do whatever the hell it wants. <br /><br />The second sign of a rocky relationship between us was the story's insane progression. Here's the film, dreamy reporter guy reports on big snake tracks, flashes back to a time he and dad wandered into what must have been the competition for the store in gremlins and dreamy kid reporter finds a box that glows. Old shop keep reveals several terrible truths. That Bauraki a supposedly evil snake was cheated out of his chance to be a god. tells the kid that he's a reincarnated warrior and that somewhere in LA is his reincarnated lover and gives him a junk piece of jewelry. Shop keep also reveals that despite his obvious whiteness he's a 500 year old Asian. <br /><br />fifteen years later dreamy reporter remembers this perfectly and starts acting half crazy trying to find this random girl. cgi hijinks follow and in the last ten minutes my brain melts out of my nose. Why? Continue on dear reader if you have the Balls.<br /><br />so Sarah, the reincarnated lover, has her own flashbacks. I have the benefit of having an Asian best friend and in the scene where she starts to freak out and make a bunch of posters with Asian characters on them he tells me that whoever made this movie has no idea what their doing. Its a Korean legend and she's reincarnated from a Korean princess but everything is in Chinese. Later that night her dragon tat starts to hurt, she calls the police cause it looks like she's having a heart attack. See, in this mixed up crazy world they apparently handle heart attacks differently because the next time we see her she's locked in her room with a guard outside and a nurse claims she's crazy. I have a new phobia now, and its that if i'm ever in trouble the first responders will just assume i'm crazy. <br /><br />I have another point of contention with my harsh mistress, Dwar. There is a scene when Patrick Dempsey Jr (Dreamy Reporter) is in a café' with sassy black friend. In the scenes prior Miffed Near divinity Bauraki has killed an elephant, slithered through a suburb and killed one of Sarah's friends. See, people were afraid to come out after 9-11 happened but we must have all toughened up after that deciding coffee and pastries were worth risking our lives for. Business as usual, no way a giant snake will stop me from getting my caffeine on. If i stay inside and fear for my life the terrorists and serpentine divinities win. <br /><br />After being given a satisfying dragon on Helicopter battle my cruel lover Dwar treats me to a pi$$ and vinegar filled scene to end it all with. Bauraki has a fortress of his own and its right under LA i guess. They don't really say but Dreamy Reporter and Sarah get knocked out in a car crash that would kill lesser men and when they wake up, yep dragon palace. some retarded dialog later a good dragon snake god pops out of nowhere and the snakes wrestle/make love whatever. And i'm not kidding good snake out of nowhere. Maybe you think i'm blowing it out of proportion, i'm not there is no mention of this thing in the movie then suddenly... there! Few seconds later and good dragon becomes dragon god, sets Baurki on fire, Sarah turns into a ghost and goes with Dragon-god, dreamy reporter left in the middle of nowhere roll credits... thank god<br /><br />Now our relationship as rocky as it was had its good times. There was a guy that look like shredder from turtles and talked exactly like a tuskan raider from star wars. I'll call him Tuskan Shredder. He could do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted to it just could never be useful. He could walk through a wall in a scene where that wasn't helpful. He could go in your dreams when that wouldn't do any good and he could light ten random soldier guys on fire but not when it mattered. He was also allergic to touching that junk jewelry. I like him cause he was hit by a car twice in the same scene and made fantastic tuskan raider noises. <br /><br />The actors for the most part were great... if great somehow meant terrible. Jason Behr, whom i thought was awesome in Roswell i slowly find out can only act one way and that's pretentious, spacey and Patrick Dempsey"ish".<br /><br />The one thing i love about this filthy prostitute Dwars is its lead actor, Bauraki. That Giant snake acted his heart out. I'd dare to say that he was better at playing a cgi serpentine demi-god of evil then John Barrymore was at playing Richard the III or Hamlet. There was emotion in every scene, stealing the thunder from his lesser mortal supporting cast. When he ate an elephant i felt like no one past, present or future would ever eat an elephant with as much feeling. He was more then an actor, he was a force of nature and he put his heart and soul into every second of this cursed project. Yes damn it, my favorite actor in this film was a cgi snake. I've got the balls to admit that, do you?<br /><br />Here's to hoping Bauraki get's more work and isn't type cast, that Jason Behr finds a range of emotion other then dreamy stare, and that i never have to watch Blue Monkey again. <br /><br />So, D-War its over. I want my CDs back and let's just be friends | 0neg
|
Hilarious, laugh out loud moments ... and yet not a comedy. I particularly liked the planted gag of the ambulance soaking the "filthy bum" who then shouts after them in anger "you filthy bums", I mean wow, someone's online degree in literature is paying off! The worst script imaginable, with plot introductions in an instant, ridiculous movement in the story, ZERO character development (even between the characters who meet .. it's as if they all have known and trusted each other for years) dodgy voice over with added echo effects, and plot holes.. oh God are there plot holes!! To be honest I write this not even having watched the entire thing, but I certainly expect the last 30 mins or so to not exactly enhance the already pathetic attempt in cinema ... thank god we've got a good looking lead to somewhat make us forget that the film is a load of ... well ... use you imagination for the conclusion of that particular sentence! | 0neg
|
I'm giving this movie a 1 because there are no negative numbers in IMDb rating system. this movie was horrible. It was very badly acted, the story was poorly written, the action was unbelievable. I doubt even the Salvation Army could battle as poorly as the troops did in this film. I won't even write any plot spoilers because the movie just isn't good enough for plot spoilers. To write comments on the plot would be pointless. If I were to compare this movie, I'd have to compare it to Reign of Fire, however although I didn't like Reign of Fire either, that movie at least was better than this one. <br /><br />Some of the people in the theater left before the movie was even halfway done. The only reason I didn't was because I simply didn't think to do it. I was hoping for a feast of CGI and fighting masterfully done, but that isn't what happened. The martial arts lasted all of 30 seconds and that was from an exercise routine done during the flash-back scene, very disappointing. The CGI was not done well either. One scene comes to mind. During one of the earlier tank battles, the troops are firing away at......nothing. Someone forgot to cue the animation guys on that bit of film so the street was totally devoid of bad guys. I'm also thinking the bad guy's voice was dubbed by the voice-over of Imotep from The Mummy movies. Had that same scraggly echoing thing going on. (Someone owed some royalties, here?) Since I mentioned the fight scene, I'll say yeah that might be considered a spoiler, but only to the purists I suppose.<br /><br />Don't go see it, don't buy the DVD when it comes out either. You have been warned. | 0neg
|
I am a guy, who loves guy movies... I was looking forward to seeing a dragon fighting with the army with cool special effects. All of this happened, however, this movie was the worst movie I have ever seen in my life.<br /><br />The story was standard, but the portrayal of the story was terrible. The scene transitions were the worst I have ever seen. Why would you walk out to a beach to relax if your life was in danger? The serpent dragon's actions itself was very poorly written... and the serpent dragon's attack capabilities varied widely throughout the movie, several times the main characters should have died.<br /><br />The director attempted to infuse a love story in the middle of the movie during the most stressful times, this movie was obviously not watched after it was made, I love movies, but had to force myself to finish watching it, thank god I did not buy this, I borrowed it from a friend.<br /><br />Do not buy this, do not rent it, just watch discovery channel... much more exciting. | 0neg
|
{rant start} I didn't want to believe them at first, but I guess this is what people are talking about when they say South Korean cinema has peaked and may even be going downhill. After the surprisingly fun and moving monster movie "Gwoemul" (aka "The Host") of 2006-- which actually succeeded in making a sharp satire out of a B-movie genre-- successive Korean blockbusters have become more and more generic, even though their budgets (mainly spent on special effects) have become more and more fantastic. Do South Korean movie-makers really want to squander all the audience and investor goodwill, which their industry has built up since the 1999 break-out film "Shiri/Swiri", by making a whole series of big budget mediocre movies like mainland China did? {rant end}<br /><br />The only "reason" I can fathom for making this movie is to dupe the investors into financing the most detailed and fluid digital animation of a Korean/ East Asian-styled dragon I have seen to date, for the final scenes. Now if they had introduced that dragon at the beginning and given it more personality and purpose like in the 1996 "Dragonheart", the movie might have had a few more redeeming qualities other than having lots of digitally animated dragons. Remember "Dungeons & Dragons" in 2000? Hasn't anyone learnt that the trick is not how MUCH special effects you use, but how WELL you use it? I hope there are more (and better) Korean legends they can use, because they have just killed a lot of international interest in Korean dragon legends with the way they filmed this one.<br /><br />In short, I agree with all the negative reviews gone before and wonder how Koreans felt about having their folk anthem "Arirang" being played at the very end. As a creature feature, I would have given it at least 5 stars out of 10 if the special effects or action sequences had been worth it, but I've seen many video games with better camera work and scripting (just less dragons). | 0neg
|
This is the sorriest collection of clichés, strung together on a straight line, with no discernible plot or any decent way of acting I've seen in a long time. Canibalising scenes from Star Wars, Reign of Fire, Godzilla, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, it went for an all out war on the viewer intelligence. Was this movie good? It wasn't a movie at all!<br /><br />Even if it doesn't go so low to actually be funny and achieve cult status as a comedy, the movie does offer some laughs. The trick is to put the copied scenes in the context of their original films. Gandalf can be funny talking Korean, the basilisk looking snake hilarious if you compare it to a kitten and the evil henchman can provide a lot of fun switching back and forth between Sauron and Jaja-bing, or whatever his name was.<br /><br />Bottom line: any pleasure derived from this movie is completely dependent on the state of intoxication and imagination of the viewers, not on the director/writer. Shame on you, Shim! | 0neg
|
My original review of this film was simply the word sh*t written 2000 times over. Although this was a very accurate critique, I felt my review should be a little more descriptive.<br /><br />I will start with the lead actress; her facial expression doesn't change once in this film, she doesn't show fear, happiness or depression. Her skills in body language pretty much come down to darting her eyes left and right and looking like she don't know jack. She is an emotionless husk who I'm guessing has had too much botox. Her lack of facial expression through out the film is outmatched however by the deplorable love affair with the lead actor which seems to spring out of nowhere and has them making out on a beach and falling in love within a couple of hours of meeting one another. The lead actor, whose hair demands more attention than he did, was mediocre at best and did not once make me feel like he was genuinely in peril.<br /><br />The only thing that tops the hideous acting is the directing, storyline and inaccuracies in plot. I have seen tampon ads with more structure than this movie. The is no development in character, they just seem to say and do things that I could never believe a real person would.<br /><br />This film would not have been bad if it was trying to be crap on purpose like snakes on a plane but it was trying so hard to be a serious action flick that I couldn't even laugh. I believe I now have a brain tumour from watching this film and thinking up all the different ways I could have used that budget and cg team to create something far superior. If I bought this on DVD I would smash the DVD to pieces, burn it then dissolve it in hydrochloric acid for good measure. DON'T WATCH THIS FILM! | 0neg
|
First off I'd like to point out that Sam Niel is nowhere to be seen in this film. What's a movie without Sam Niel. Did anyone see Event Horizon. D-Wars did have potential a movie about a dragon that controls lizards with rocket launchers does sound cool but sadly isn't. Nope, no Sam Niel, no good movie. I recommend taking the 5 dollars or so it takes to rent D-Wars and adding 10 to that five and buying a Sam Niel film- apparently to submit this i have to have ten lines of text so heres a list of Sam Niel movies i recommend<br /><br />-jurassic park -dead calm -hunt for red October -event horizon -not jurassic park three<br /><br />overall D-Wars is a pile | 0neg
|
Whatever his name is (the writer and director) should be locked away in hopes garbage like this is never made again. This one is in a battle with some of the most awful movies of all time. Sometimes movies are bad in a way that they're actually sort of good. Not this one. This was so bad I got angry. Seriously. A drunken 10 year old could have come up with a better script. What a waste. ALL the actors were completely uninspired to work at all, the CGI was barely acceptable, the sequences of scenes were completely retarded and hurt the little bit of story there was, it's like he just decided, "I want this to happen and this to happen, but I don't care how we got there, just shoot it and put it in. Whatever, I'm going back to my trailer to pick my nose, if anyone calls for me, I'm not here." Shame on you whatever your name is. Shame on you. | 0neg
|
I hate to even waste the time it takes to write 10 lines on this atrocity. Hyung-Rae Shim is lucky that bad film-making isn't a capital crime or he'd be put to death twice for writing and directing this disaster. I'm amazed that this film had a $75m budget, but actually glad in the sense that it was such a tremendous flop, that Shim will hopefully, never get to make another movie the rest of the life and, therefore, not waste any more of filmgoers time. I would think the actors would have gotten together and lynched him by now.<br /><br />With the effects resources available to them, a great film could have been made with this budget. As usual, the failure should have been spotted at the very beginning with the terrible script and story. "Transformers" was another visual feast with a weak script, but this makes it look like "Citizen Kane". | 0neg
|
Based on the Korean legend, unknown creatures will return and devastate the planet. Reporter Ethan Kendrick is called in to investigate the matter, and he arrives at the conclusion that a girl, stricken with a mysterious illness, named Sarah is suppose to help him. The Imoogi makes its way to Los Angeles, wreaking havoc and destruction. With the entire city under arms, will Ethan and Sarah make it in time to save the people of Los Angeles? Written by Anonymous I think he should have included the following<br /><br />This is the worst movie i have ever seen the best actor in the whole thing was the CG dragon and overall it s u c k-ed i am p i s s-ed at not only with the people who made it but myself for watching save yourself the time read a book or something maybe a little Dr Seuss that should be more stimulating.<br /><br />no wonder the guy is anonymous sorry for the format this site has a lot of rules this is the only way i could get this out without adding more | 0neg
|
This movie was so very badly written. The characters had no depth. They should have never made a movie of this. My 11 yr old son could write a better screenplay then Hyung-rae Shim.<br /><br />The only actor that didn't suck was the zoo guard. He was the only funny and believable one of the lot.<br /><br />I love movies and try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this one was up there on my lame list at number 2. Number 1 being Demonicus.<br /><br />For those of you who actually thought this was a good movie, you are in serious need of brain surgery.<br /><br />Most of the creatures in the movie weren't even dragons...so why did they call D-war? | 0neg
|
this movie only gets a second star because i work downtown and liked seeing it destroyed. the effects were pretty good- i hear it was the most expensive Korean film ever made. being the most expensive and still absolutely horrid makes it a massive waste of money. i rented it so i won't complain too much about what i paid, but it was a couple hours that i'll never get back. plot holes abound. terrible acting all across the board. i do not recommend giving up the time to watch this movie, life is too short. if your friends want to watch this, run away. i can't stress enough how bad this film was. <br /><br />where the hell did the second dragon come from? why didn't he show up sooner? how did they have rocket launchers on dinosaurs just 500 years ago? | 0neg
|
I knew it would be, but I gave it a rent for some laughs and maybe some mindless fun. Anyone whose read a few of my reviews can see that I'm pretty easy to please. I really didn't think I'd end up feeling this negatively towards it.<br /><br />The plot is about an ancient army of dragons lead by a huge serpent that will destroy the world unless some chosen heroes who inherited the responsibility can
become one with
a good dragon
or something
I don't know. It was so stupid, I didn't bother to put much effort into retaining it.<br /><br />It features a really dumb story full of ridiculous moments and goofy concepts. So many of the events just felt totally random and sudden.<br /><br />I assume there was studio interference or something because the biggest problem I have with the movie is the fact that the story seems like it's trying to be so grand and epic, yet everything happens so fast and goes by so quickly. I feel like I've just been hit with a million plot points and action sequences in one big ball. The film is like a punch in the face. It doesn't take much time at all to establish characters or drama. Imagine the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy in 90 minutes
You could have most of the epic battle sequences, but there would be absolutely no buildup and you'd hardly care about the outcome of those battles. That was the case with Dragon Wars
90 minutes of me not giving a crap, waiting for it to be over.<br /><br />Fantastic CGI with some okay directing, but horrible acting, speedy pacing, and dumb story made this very hard to enjoy on any grounds. I probably would have loved it when I was 6. | 0neg
|
I was dreading taking my nephews to this movie, as I didn't think it was going to be well done. The kids, ages 6 and 10 were set on seeing it, so I caved. I must admit that it was not nearly as bad as I had thought, but was still a far cry from the book. The movie seemed right on with the 10 year old's understanding and sense of humor. I found that the 6 year old understood what was going on and he was presenting solutions to the issues that were taking place. I eventually had to explain that sometimes the movies don't show the best solutions to the problems because it is more fun to watch what happens if they make the "silly" or "stupid" choices. | 0neg
|
Squeamish 11-year-old Luke Benward (as Billy "Worm Boy" Forrester) moves to a new town. At his new school, young Benward is picked on by the other boys. They put worms in his thermos. Getting his gag reflex under control, Benward tosses a worm on freckle-faced bully Adam Hicks (as Joe Guire). Benward bets he can eat 10 worms in one day - without regurgitation! <br /><br />Tall, teased Hallie Kate Eisenberg (as Erika "Erk" Tansy) uses her archery skills to help Benward. Director and former SCTV writer Bob Dolman promises, "No worms were harmed in the making of this movie." In a related note, SCTV star Andrea Martin has one funny scene. "How to Eat Fried Worms" is loosely based on Thomas Rockwell's popular novel. Pre-teen kids into gross-outs should enjoy the film.<br /><br />**** How to Eat Fried Worms (8/25/06) Bob Dolman ~ Luke Benward, Adam Hicks, Hallie Kate Eisenberg, Alexander Gould | 0neg
|
I was bored, around 10pm, so I watched this movie. And I could not stop laughing. Everything was so ridiculous. The way the kids were acting like they were older than 11 just cracked me up. One of the kids had a ring, that supposedly killed people after 3 or so years. It gave me the impression that he wanted to be a gangster.<br /><br />It's pretty hard to take little kids seriously, especially when it has to do with eating worms. They act like everything is such a big deal, like if Billy (the main character) doesn't eat the worms then the world will end.<br /><br />This is a good movie for little kids (excluding the fact that a 5 year old says 'penis'), but not for teens or adults who don't want to waste their time. | 0neg
|
I have to admit I did not finish this movie because it was so amazingly stupid and not worth watching. I watched it with a room full of kids, who also were not laughing at the stupid and crude humor. The director, Bob Dolman, seems to be so obsessed with sphincters and genitalia that it overrides the real story that I grew up with. THIS IS NOT A GOOD FILM FOR KIDS! Besides the fact that the content is so crude, the movie is just stupid has bad flow and has no intelligence behind it. What a waste of a perfectly good story. If you read the book when you were younger and loved it, then don't waste your time watching a movie that so badly botches it that it makes you angry. Buy your kids the book instead. | 0neg
|
i just happened to stumble on this film channel surfing. my first reaction was, 'oh god not again!'. it's so hip to play a retard these days it has become pretentious and frankly despicable. for some reason, though, i stayed and watched it 'til the end. maybe it was my faith in the actors, hoping they'd give me something to cheer about.<br /><br />and surely, ken and helena can act. also, the movie progresses into something better towards the end and actually does make a point.<br /><br />helena bonham carter also surprised me with her character. jane has a mean side that she uses to keep distance and repel pity. then again she has a soft side that's just looking for love. the only thing that surprised me even more was branagh's character...this was a triumph of acting, the movie itself is nothing unique.<br /><br />see if you are an acting student...if you're looking for pure entertainment you can skip this one. it's sean penn serious! oh my, that was a bit harsh it does feature a couple jokes...not for escapists though. | 0neg
|
Spoiler!! I love Branagh, love Helena Bonham-Carter, loved them together in "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" - but THIS -<br /><br />I can understand an actor's desire to stretch, to avoid the romantic stereotype. Well, they did, but really - the script droned on, Bonham-Carter's clothes were tres chic, and the occasional speeded-up "madcap" sequence could have been an outtake from a Beatles' movie, or the old Rowan and Martin Laugh-In.<br /><br />I never got the point - other commenters say the Branagh character was a dreamer. I never felt that. He was a loser, and not very bright, and certainly not endearing. The business with the bank robber disguise was merely painful to watch. Certainly not amusing.<br /><br />Bonham-Carter's realistic (one supposes) attempts as realistic speech were harder to understand than the first 15 minutes of Lancashire accent in "Full Monty."<br /><br />The poetic ending, with him high on a hill with her buried under the monstrosity of his airplane was too orchestrated. Was there a choir of angels, or merely a soundtrack?<br /><br />Go back to the classics or something with a spine and an arc to it. Donate this to PBS.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
I still don't know why I forced myself to sit through the whole thing. This "film" wasn't worth the Memorex DVD-R it was burned on; I thought I was watching the end result of a group of middle schoolers stealing their parents' camcorder. This is by far the worst movie ever made. I truly, from the bottom of my heart, want to sue Aaron Yamasato for the two hours he stole from my life.<br /><br />So apparently, it's supposed to be bad on purpose; However, if you should end up in Hell and are forced to watch this 90-minute coil of doo-doo, you'll see that Yamasato is really trying hard to make an awesome flick. The actors attempt dramatic kick-ass performances comparable to Crimson Tide but come closer to The Marine.<br /><br />The crap acting is just the tip of the iceberg. The camera angles are awful. The story is C-movie at best-- the plot isn't even good enough to be considered B-movie caliber. The dialogue attempts to be dynamic and witty, but is crap like everything else. Rumor has it that a hard copy of the screenplay actually attracts flies. Plus, the techno score is annoying... not because it's techno, but because it's NON-STOP. That's right, the music plays in the background THE WHOLE TIME, acting as a subliminal reminder of how bad this thing is. I don't care what the disclaimer claims, I don't buy it. BOTS was not made this bad on purpose, because it takes itself WAY too serious for what it was: a joke.<br /><br />This "film" was very low-budget. But that is no excuse for its record-setting suck factor. Great films are born of substance, not budget. BOTS had neither.<br /><br />Allow me to further articulate the overwhelming power of this 90-minute waste of time: if I were having a three-way with Jessica Alba and Jessica Biel in front of a TV and Blood of the Samurai came on, I'd be out of there quicker than Steven Seagal in Executive Decision.<br /><br />Undoubtedly, some people will try to defend the movie. Two, maybe three. They'll say, "it's grindhouse chop-socky!" or "cheesy in a good way!" or "it's so bad, it's good!" Those people are idiots. A movie is either good, or it's bad. There's no such thing as a good bad movie. But there ARE such things as idiots that like crappy movies. Don't get me wrong; there are lots of cornball not-to-be-taken-seriously movies out there that are enjoyable and entertaining. Slither is one. BOTS is not.<br /><br />This suckfest runs about an hour and a half, and in my humble opinion, it's 90 minutes too long. The best thing about this "film" is the DVD cover, so next time you're near the Wal-Mart DVD bargain bin, take a look at it-- DON'T TOUCH IT, just look-- and quietly walk away. | 0neg
|
I have no clue as to what this was shot on but you can definitely tell that they had no budget. Bad acting, horrible cinematography, and lame plot and some decent special effects do not make a good movie. The WWF style cinemtography will make you cry...where's the tripod?! The filmakers aimed high, but sorely missed their mark. | 0neg
|
Trash/bad movies usually ain't bad because I will find them enjoyable. This one is so bad that I am out of words to describe it - its below "bad". There is an instruction in the beginning of the film that tell you what to do during the movie. Needless to say, the instruction and a dozen of beer couldn't help me seat through the entire film. One tagliner compares this one to KILLBILL which is certainly unthinkable and an insult to our intelligent. Obviously. this tagliner had a plan to tempt you into buying this DVD.<br /><br />If you are considering renting this one, put it down! If you are thinking of buying, Dont think! If you unlucky to have this dvd, dont play it, throw it in trash bin immediately. | 0neg
|
There are no spoilers in this review. There's nothing to spoil.<br /><br />No plot, nothing; most clip shows at least try to tie the clips into the plot by some tenuous stretch, but this didn't even do that. Clips, three lines to lead into the next interminable sequence of dull clips... OK, so perhaps they were short on production time, but they'd have been better off skipping this episode entirely. What a waste of time.<br /><br />I'm not sure how this got made, in fact. Scrubs is usually much better at subverting tropes, but somehow this got through....<br /><br />Thank heavens they were back on form by the next episode. | 0neg
|
The only reason I am commenting is because I finally figured out why Dr. Cox was bald. Although we probably all realized it at the same time this week, Dr. Cox is bald because they showed these episodes in a different order than they filmed them. The latest episode when our favorite grumpy, Jesus-loving Nurse Roberts dies Dr. Cox shaves his head. The must have showed them out of order for some odd reason and forgot they slipped up the continuity. For shame, Scrubs. They've made mistakes like this before. I remember when Elliot is trying to date Scott Foley and her hair is wet 2 seconds before water hits her. I try not to notice these things, but my favorite show needs to step it up. | 0neg
|
I thought it was not the best re-cap episode I've every seen (though my viewing partner handed me a tissue in anticipation of the Brendan Fraser moment...*sigh*). It was nice to see Cox outside of the incessantly brittle "Coxism State" he is in these days, if only for brief moments. I also enjoyed trying to place the episodes included by the length of the character's hair (or height, in case of JD) and the youthfulness of the earliest episodes. I can also see how Zach might be well on the way to a very Chevy Chase/or is that Matthew Perry? prat-fall induced chemical slide (already acknowledged on Conan). A little side note, the song (now stuck in my head) from the janitor-induced dance montage was "Diner" by Martin Sexton. | 0neg
|
But, lets face it... it got a few nostalgic sighs out of me.<br /><br />The show is just so consistently great that it is allowed to have a few hiccups. I get a new season, and just power through them like I have 2-days to live. I like the idea of wrapping it up, but it was much more of an end of season episode which would explain the following:<br /><br />Dr.Cox isn't supposed to be bald for a couple more episodes, only explanation I can think of is they changed the rotation of the episodes or had to re-shoot the beginning.<br /><br />and that my friends, is why the hell cox is bald.<br /><br />Anyways, the show is awesome...bring on the 7th season. | 0neg
|
I debated as to whether or not I should tick the spoiler box. Since 99% of this show has probably already been seen by any follower of Scrubs it probably doesn't come under the category of a spoiler.<br /><br />Clip shows. Grrr. We all knew Friends was going down the tube when they started with clip shows...and five and a half years into Scrubs they've gone and fallen down that hole.<br /><br />I have to wonder if the writers just couldn't be bothered writing that week and just said to themselves "let's show the other funny stuff." It didn't work.<br /><br />For starters, showing all the times that people have fallen down isn't funny when taken out of context. It's not funny to see Todd dangling by his banana hammock unless we know WHY he was dangling by his banana hammock.<br /><br />Second, for what was supposed to be a compilation of JD's fantasies, one was Turk's dream, another also wasn't his fantasy, although I forget which.<br /><br />And that's the problem. This episode is totally forgettable. We've seen all these things before. And the collection of clips of people dancing? Why? That's not funny.<br /><br />Finally, I must admit two of my favourite Scrubs moments were shown in the last compilation...Dr. Cox realising that Ben died...and JD telling him how proud of him he is.<br /><br />But even seeing those moments again didn't save the episode. The summary says it all.<br /><br />Worst episode ever. Bill Lawrence, PLEASE don't let your show go the same way as Friends, keep it fresh, keep it funny...or wrap it up. | 0neg
|
When 'My Deja Vu, My Deja Vu' aired last season, I was pleased. Scrubs, I thought, is doing something clever and unique in regards to the clip-show concept. Instead of replaying footage, they're replaying jokes in a self-aware manner, and I really enjoyed it.<br /><br />I found it really unfortunate that I was wrong. One season later, they succumbed to that which almost all sitcoms inevitably do, the clip show...and it looked like it was put together by the work-experience kid. Dr Cox's shaved head shows just how lazy the editors were in putting it together, as it doesn't appear again until 'My Long Goodbye' some 4 episodes later. I can't imagine that a wig is too much effort when it comes to maintaining the continuity of what was once a well-constructed sitcom. Who knows why it was slotted there, it just seemed lazy and out of place, reminding me (largely) of episodes that have aired within the past year.<br /><br />Three second clips jammed together with background music is a DVD extra for a (very) rainy day, not an episode of prime-time television. | 0neg
|
Truly bad and easily the worst episode I have ever seen....ever.<br /><br />They tried to make up for it by giving it the, 'we know we are doing this' routine. That would have been funny if it weren't for the fact that 'The Simpsons' had already done it. And it still wouldn't make up for it if they had come up with the idea in the first place.<br /><br />The flashbacks took place as part of the usual character's (mainly J.D's) fantasies. The flashbacks weren't even of actual events that occurred, just compilations of say, J.D falling over or, i don't know.... Elliott falling over. If I wanted to watch a Scrubs compilation i'd go on youtube and not waste half an hour of my life.<br /><br />Scrubs has ultimately fallen into the trap that most sit-coms have to, and it disappoints me, they managed to go 5 and a quarter seasons without an episode like this. <br /><br />I was hoping that scrubs wouldn't have to be that kind of sit-com.<br /><br />And just as a passing thought, why the hell was Dr.Cox bald? | 0neg
|
Whoa boy.<br /><br />Ever wanted to watch a documentary about a megalomaniacal jerk ruining his own life and alienating everyone around him? Well they exist, in many forms. But have you ever wanted to watch said documentary about one who didn't ultimately succeed in doing anything despite everyone's praises about how much of an artistic "genius" he is? Well you could probably just grab a camera and find someone like that in any local scene (I know they're everywhere and I don't even follow the local scene), or you could save yourself the trouble by spending money watching this tripe.<br /><br />The premise is good and, honestly, it's not as if the filmmakers knew precisely where it was going considering that's one of the difficulties of doing a documentary. We are made to follow two bands, The Brian Jamestown Massacre, lead by Anton, and The Dandy Warhols, lead by Courtney. I've heard of The Dandy Warhols before watching this movie... not so the Brian Jamestown Massacre. Why? Well from this documentary's perspective, because The Brian Jamestown Massacre's intergroup dysfunction refused them the ability to really make it in the music industry. However, instead of this becoming an analysis of the two separate bands and how one was able to succeed, the focus becomes much more on Anton and his insanity.<br /><br />Because, see, Anton is a "genius." Because he plays rock music. He really "understands the evolution of music"... because he plays rock music with a lot of different instruments. His music is considered "post-modern retro but the future"... because it's rock music. He wants to bring out a "revolution"... through rock music. Okay so let's face it... twenty minutes in and this is one of the stupidest kids I'd care to watch a documentary about.<br /><br />The documentary itself doesn't really lend itself to showcasing any of Anton's talent, because in the nature of editing down 2000 hours of material into a quarter short of two hours we don't really have the time to focus on that. So instead we watch Anton, "the genius", the socio-maniacal loser, be a jerk for the two hours and are just told to understand that he made really great music. Whether he did or not I won't know, because its not like the documentary had enough time to prove it. What I do know is that then we're left with a story about some self-centered obnoxious twerp running around the country calling himself a God of music and doing nothing to back it up. Why even bother watching that? People like Anton don't deserve the attention they seek, the hope and admiration of all those different people, and especially a post-failure paean to lost potential. This movie plays like a two-hour rough-cut VH1 special for a reason: he goes on and on about the music, but it's all about the image and the attention. Look at the guy, look at how he dresses, look at how he acts, look at how he tries to create controversy because he can't afford marketing.<br /><br />Honestly the only interesting character in this film is Joel, and that's because of anyone in this documentary, Joel is the only person who seems to have any fun. Maybe it's because he's the tambourine man. The rest of them are all "rock stars"! They deserve our attention, and admiration, and interest, and engagements! They are out there to "save rock and roll." Do you remember when The White Stripes were supposed to "save rock and roll"? Yeah, that was because of Anton, and it's "selfish of them not to mention me (Anton) as an inspiration." What a load. People like Anton are best left forgotten. This documentary explains why mainstream music is so dull--because music execs have to deal with people like Anton for a living and ultimately can only really throw their support behind someone safe and passionless. Thanks a lot, Anton. Your antics ruined music for EVERYONE you touched, whatever the opinion to the contrary is. And if people "in the know" about Anton disagree and he really was a genius, it still shows how bad this documentary is that it cuts it down that way.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | 0neg
|
Actress Ruth Roman's real-life philanthropic gesture to help entertain troops arriving from and leaving for the Korean War at an air base near San Francisco jump-started this all-star Warner Bros. salute to patriotism and song. Many celebrities make guest appearances while a love-hate romance develops between a budding starlet and a painfully green and skinny Air Force Corporal (Ron Hagerthy, who looks like he should be delivering newspapers from his bicycle). Seems the Corporal has fooled the actress into thinking he's off to battle when actually he's part of a airplane carrier crew, flying to and from Honolulu (you'd think she'd be happy he was staying out of harm's way, but instead she acts just like most childish females in 1950s movies). Doris Day is around for the first thirty minutes or so, and her distinct laugh and plucky song numbers are most pleasant. Roman is also here, looking glamorous, while James Cagney pokes fun at his screen persona and Gordon MacRae sings in his handsome baritone. Jane Wyman sings, too, in a hospital bedside reprise following Doris Day's lead, causing one to wonder, "Did they run out of sets?" For undemanding viewers, an interesting flashback to another time and place. Still, the low-rent production and just-adequate technical aspects render "Starlift" strictly a second-biller. *1/2 from **** | 0neg
|
It's nothing more than a weird coincidence that I decided to watch STARLIFT on the 59th anniversary of the day in June 1950 when President Truman's ordered US forces into the Korean War. STARLIFT, you see, is set largely at Travis Air Force base in California in the years when it was being used as a staging post for soldiers being shipped out to fight in Korea. But you'd need to do your own research to know this because not once during the film is the name 'Korea' mentioned. We see transport aircraft flying out fresh troops and returning with wounded soldiers but there's no mention of where these men will be fighting or getting injured. Which is kind of weird for a film designed to wave the flag and salute America's men in uniform. Released in December 1951 by Warner Brothers, STARLIFT is a very obvious effort to replicate the success of the studio's star-studded World War Two home-front morale booster "Hollywood Canteen." This 1944 crowd-pleaser told the story of two soldiers spending their last three nights of leave hanging out at the famous armed forces nightclub in LA hoping to get a date with Joan Leslie. But really it was just an excuse for Warners to trot out every star under contract, from Joan Crawford, John Garfield, and Barbara Stanwyck to Peter Lorre, Bette Davis, Sydney Greenstreet and more. STARLIFT features two Air Force soldiers hoping to meet fictional starlet Nell Wayne (a mask-like Janice Rule) and persuading a bunch of Warner Bros stars to put on a show for the departing troops. But in place of Crawford, Garfield et al the best the brothers Warner could scrape up in 1951 were Doris Day, Ruth Roman, Gordon MacRae, Virginia Mayo, Gene Nelson and Phil Harris with fleeting appearances by James Cagney, Randolph Scott, and a clearly embarrassed looking Gary Cooper. This threadbare cast, whose combined star power would struggle to illuminate a standard lamp, is perfectly matched by the crummy production values. Presumably in an effort to save money several long scenes were shot using really really bad back projection. How bad is it? You can see the join where the screen meets the floor of the soundstage! To describe STARLIFT as a sloppy, lazy and third rate movie is to do a disservice to films which are sloppy, lazy and third rate. It's just terrible. Avoid it. | 0neg
|
This oddity in the new DORIS DAY COLLECTION doesn't really need to be included as she is only in the film for less than 30 minutes. What she does do however, is shine when she's on screen. The near plot less movie is just an excuse to showcase some Warner contract players of the day. JANCIE RULE shows promise and it's a shame she didn't become a big star. RUTH ROMAN handles the role of the "go-getter" with aplomb. Better if this was in color. The Travis Air force base locations with some rear projection work well. What's best about the movie are some wonderful musical interludes. If you enjoyed THANK YOUR LUCKY STARS and Hollywood CANTEEN you'll like this one. | 0neg
|
Considering its pedigree, this should be a far more enjoyable film than it is. Even with a lip-smacking collection of eccentrics in the cast - what aficionado would not eagerly anticipate a movie which brings together Lemmon, Lanchester, Kovacs and Gingold? - the entire event is dully paced, drearily shot and, more often than not, witless.<br /><br />Kim Novak's gifts were not essentially comic, as she went on to confirm in Kiss Me Stupid. James Stewart was a fine comedian, as he ably demonstrated in movies from ranging from The Philadelphia Story to Harvey. I think he comes out better from this mess than anyone else does. Except maybe the cat. | 0neg
|
Chesty gringo Telly Savalas (as Frank Cooper) is a US-Mexico "Border Cop". He serves as a father figure to young immigrant Danny De La Paz (as Benny Romero), who wants Mr. Savalas to be best man at his impending wedding. Savalas is tough, but boss Eddie Albert (as Commander Moffat) may be tougher. Tough is what you need to stop smuggler Michael V. Gazzo (as Chico Suarez). Alliances may be in flux.<br /><br />If you find the possibility of hearing "Kojak" and "Oliver Douglas" uttering expletives to be repulsive, you ought to steer clear of "The Border". If not, you may not have the stomach for the "realistic" cow slaughtering scene. Although it doesn't end up being worth much, Mr. De La Paz and Cecilia Camacho (as Leina) steal the show. <br /><br />** The Border (1979) Tony Richardson ~ Telly Savalas, Danny De La Paz, Eddie Albert | 0neg
|
I would like to say that unlike many of the people who disliked this film and found it impossible to understand I was fully able to understand it for what it is.. A very incoherent attempt at a plot line.<br /><br />I don't like to toss this word around but in this case it fits very well. The director firstly presents the material in an extremely "arrogant" way and worse, extremely incoherently. It is incoherent in that it presents the material in a messy dislodged order, making us think that the director was too drunk to remember which scenes come first, and arrogant in that at 2 hours long they expect us, the viewer to CARE by the end of it.<br /><br />I respect surrealist cinema for what it is. (creating a story around a more than real world that does not tie to real life) But there is nothing surreal about having a story placed in ordinary modern times, and a modern day earth setting, that is most importantly not able to engage the audience but furthermore, simply a dislodged series of events that barely tie together. The most accurate way to describe the experience of viewing this film is like viewing a story; perhaps even a very GOOD story as it was based on a book, but being frustrated by the fact that the camera doesn't seem to capture the necessary moments and tie together any means of coherence.<br /><br />Let's compare stylistic cinema. Compare Gaspar Noe's "Seul contre tous" to this. He gave us a coherent, extremely engaging and intellectually deep story. This movie offers no intellectual study, and while it is very stylistic in it's fragmented presentation, the director has ultimately abandoned the essential art of good storytelling and all we are left with is a mess of events that barely tie in together.<br /><br />Yes indeed it IS possible to make sense of things.... to a POINT. But as i said earlier the viewer will reach a stage where they simply say "Who cares." It plays out like watching a drab mundane story of a man going to a supermarket and buying groceries in uncronological order. Even with murders it is completely uninteresting and unengaging. Too many people these days will give high marks to something they are unable to understand or make sense of simply for fear of looking foolish, and in every way this film TRIES to make the viewer look foolish.<br /><br />If you have too much time on your hands, then please watch this film, taking into account what I have said of it. It is a story based on a book that could have been presented in a MUCH more effective way and that is my bottom line reasoning. | 0neg
|
Claire Denis's movies seem to fall into one of two categories: the violent and bloody or the quiet and intimate. "L'Intrus" definitely falls into the first category, but it's not so awful as "Trouble Every Day" or "J'ai pas sommeil."<br /><br />Now, ever since I saw "Chocolat," I've made it a point to see every new movie Denis makes. And I have always been disappointed. "L'Intrus" was no exception. She has yet to make a movie as personal and as moving as her first one. <br /><br />You get a lot of the Denis regulars: an older but still magnificent Béatrice Dalle who seems to be in the movie only to show off her full lips, the gap between her teeth, her ample cleavage, and a couple of nice coats; the black guy from "Trouble Every Day" and "J'ai pas sommeil," Grégoire Colin, and that Lithuanian or Russian girl. Michel Subor's character was interesting enough, but the camera lingered on him at such length that I got annoyed by that curly forelock of hair hanging over his forehead and was relieved when, somewhere in Korea, I think, he finally got it cut. <br /><br />There was certainly some action--gruesome murders, a man's search for a son--and there may even have been a plot, but one viewing wasn't enough to figure it out, and two viewings are, I fear, out of the question. For one thing, the score was jarring and obtrusive (as in "Beau Travail"). For another, the seasons changed too abruptly, leaving you even more confused about what was going on. Oh, there were a few pretty shots, and if you liked "Friday Evening" with its shots of the folds in heavy drapes and bedsheets, you might appreciate the aesthetics of "L'Intrus." Otherwise, steer clear. <br /><br />I saw this movie in French and it's possible I missed something crucial. But the dialogue in a Denis movie rarely amounts to more than five pages, double spaced and with ample margins. In "Chocolat" the silence is sublime; in "L'Intrus," it's just dull. | 0neg
|
For the big thinkers among us, "The Intruder" is a maddeningly incoherent movie from France that gives so-called "art films" a bad name. The story is something about a bitter old coot, Louis Trebor (Michel Subor), who goes searching in Tahiti for a heart transplant, but beyond that, I have no idea who any of the people in the movie were or why they were doing what they were doing. With no coherent storyline to boast of, the movie loses us early on, though I'm perfectly willing to admit that there might be SOMEBODY out there who actually gets some deep message out of this film. <br /><br />This muddled, snail-paced drama runs a full two hours and five minutes - though I seriously doubt anyone with any kind of a life will still be hanging around by the closing credits. | 0neg
|
I'm a big fan of 50s sci-fi, but this is not one of my favorites. While the concept behind the movie was a natural vehicle for a classic teeny bopper sci-fi flick, the director counted too heavily on it to carry the movie. It's clear he was working with no money, because the entire movie is loaded with bloated dialogue that goes on and on forever. I have *never* seen so much time-killing in a movie.<br /><br />There are probably less than 60 seconds of "blob footage" in the entire movie, and most of the rest of it is people engaging in a lot of poorly-written, run-on dialogue. It was fun to see Steve M. and Anita C. together, but good heavens...how could casting have thought anyone in their right mind would believe them as teenagers? | 0neg
|
The Blob starts with one of the most bizarre theme songs ever, sung by an uncredited Burt Bacharach of all people! You really have to hear it to believe it, The Blob may be worth watching just for this song alone & my user comment summary is just a little taste of the classy lyrics... After this unnerving opening credits sequence The Blob introduces us, the viewer that is, to Steve Andrews (Steve McQueen as Steven McQueen) & his girlfriend Jane Martin (Aneta Corsaut) who are parked on their own somewhere & witness what looks like a meteorite falling to Earth in nearby woods. An old man (Olin Howland as Olin Howlin) who lives in a cabin also sees it & goes to investigate, he finds a crater & a strange football sized rock which splits open when he unwisely pokes it with a stick. Laying in the centre of the meteorite is a strange jelly like substance which sticks to the stick, if you know what I mean! It then slides up the stick & attachés itself to the old man's hand. Meanwhile Steve & Jane are quietly driving along minding their own business when the old man runs out in front of Steve's car, Steve being a decent kinda guy decides to take the old man to Dr. T. Hallan (Alden 'Stephen' Chase as Steven Chase) at the local surgery. Dr. Hallan says he doesn't know what the substance on the old man's hand is but it's getting bigger & asks Steve to go back where he found him & see if he can find out what happened. Steve agrees but doesn't come up with anything & upon returning to Dr. Hallan's surgery he witnesses the blob devouring him. The town's police, Lieutenant Dave (Earl Rowe) & the teenage hating Sergeant Jim Bert (John Benson) unsurprisingly don't believe a word of it & end up suspecting Steve & his mates Al (Anthony Franke), Tony (Robert Fields) & someone called 'Mooch' Miller (James Bonnet) of playing an elaborate practical joke on the police department. However as the blob continues to eat it's way through the town Steve sets about finding proof of it's existence & convincing the police about the threat it posses not just to their town but the entire world!<br /><br />Directed Irvin S. Yeaworth Jr. & an uncredited Russell S. Doughton Jr. I was throughly disappointed by this, the original 1958 version of The Blob. The script by Kay Linaker as Kate Phillips & Theodore Simonson is an absolute bore & extremely dull not making the most of it's strongest aspects. The Blob focuses on the tiresome dramatics & conflicts between the teenagers & police, in fact the majority of The Blob is spent on Steve trying to convince the police of the blob's existence. For most of the film the blob itself almost seems inconsequential & somewhat forgotten. It only has two or three scenes for the fist hour & a bit until the less than exciting climax when the adults & teenagers have to work together to defeat the blob & have a new found appreciation of each other afterwards, yuck! Why couldn't the blob just eat the lot of 'em? No explanation is given for what the blob is or it's origins other than it came from space, how long did it take them to come up with that? The dialogue is clunky & silly as well, as are people's actions & decision making, I love the part when a nurse named Kate (Lee Paton as Lee Payton, did anyone use their real name in this thing?) is confronted by the blob, she throws some acid over it & calmly proclaims "Doctor, nothing will stop it!", how does she know 'nothing' will stop it exactly? There's no blood or violence so don't worry about that, the special effects on the blob itself aren't too bad considering but it barely has any screen time & moves very slowly, a bit like the film in general actually. The acting is terrible, McQueen is supposed to be a teenager when in reality he was 28 years old & it shows, he looks old enough to be his own dad! Same thing goes for most of the other 'teenage' cast members & everyone generally speaking are wooden & unconvincing in their roles. Technically The Blob is very basic, dark static photography, dull direction & forgettable production values. The Blob is one of those films that probably sounds good on paper & is well known as being a 'classic' but is in actual fact a huge disappointment when finally seen. This is one case when the remake The Blob (1988) is definitely better than the original. The original Blob is slow & boring & the remake isn't, the original Blob contains no blood or gore & the remake does, the original Blob has incredibly poor acting & casting decisions & the remake doesn't & the original Blob itself gets very little screen time eating only three or four people throughout the entire film & the remake features the blob all the way through & it virtually eats an entire town. The choice is an easy one, the remake every time as it's a better film in every respect. I'll give the film two stars & give that wonderful main theme song one on it's own. Definitely not the classic many seem to make out. | 0neg
|
When a small glob of space age silly putty lands on earth it soon begins consuming earthlings and putting on weight. The only part of this senseless drivel that I enjoyed was all the cool classic cars. This dog had so many holes it could be sliced and sold for swiss cheese. This thing actually made 20 million bucks? And McQueen's salary was 3K? All were vastly overpaid. The 'monster' looked a lot like a large beanbag and the 'teens' looked as though they could have children approaching their teen-age years. And those blasts from the shotgun; sounded like a pellet rifle with a sound suppressor. The ending was pitifully trite; obviously the producers were leaving the door open for a sequel....and there were many. Thumbs down. | 0neg
|
This is the least scary film i have ever seen. How the blob manages to eat anyone is the biggest mystery of the film. The blob moves so slowly that an o.a.p in a zimmerframe could escape it. The blob has a large slice of luck coming across a typical horror film woman who instead of running away stands still for half an hour so that she can be eaten. If you havent seen this film i recommend you do, its far too funny to be taken seriously. | 0neg
|
Do we really need any more narcissistic garbage on the Baby Boomer generation? Technically, I am a Boomer, though at the time when all the "idealistic youths" of the '60s were reading Marx, burning their draft cards, and generally prolonging a war which destroyed tens of thousands of lives; I was still in grade school. But I remember them well, and 9 out of 10 were just moronic fools, who would believe anything as long as it was destructive.<br /><br />This is just another excercise in self-importance from the kids who never really grew up. | 0neg
|
Is there any other time period that has been so exhaustively covered by television (or the media in general) as the 1960s? No. And do we really need yet another trip through that turbulent time? Not really. But if we must have one, does it have to be as shallow as "The '60s"? <br /><br />I like to think that co-writers Bill Couturie and Robert Greenfield had more in mind for this two-part miniseries than what ultimately resulted, especially given Couturie's involvement in the superb HBO movie "Dear America: Letters Home From Vietnam" which utilized little original music and no original footage, letting the sights and sounds of the time speak for themselves. This presentation intercuts file footage with the dramatic production, but it doesn't do anyone any favours by trying to do too much in too little time; like so many of its ilk, it's seen from the point of view of one family. But the children of the family seem to be involved tangentially with almost every major event of the '60s (it's amazing that one of them doesn't go to the Rolling Stones gig at Altamont), making it seem less like a period drama and more like a Cliff Notes version of the decade.<br /><br />The makers rush through it so much that there's little or no time to give the characters any character, with the stick figures called our protagonists off screen for ages at a time - the children's father is especially clichéd - and then when they're back on BLAMMO! it's something else. Garry Trudeau could teach the filmmakers a thing or two about doing this kind of thing properly. In fairness, Jerry O'Connell, Jordana Brewster, Jeremy Sisto, Julia Stiles and Charles S. Dutton give their material the old college try, but they're wasted (especially the latter two); it's undeniably good to see David Alan Grier in a rare straight role as activist Fred Hampton, and Rosanna Arquette (in an uncredited cameo in part 2) is always welcome.<br /><br />What isn't welcome is how "The '60s" drowns the soundtrack with so many period songs that it ultimately reduces its already minimal effect (and this may well be the only time an American TV presentation about post-60s America never mentions the British Invasion - no Beatles, no Rolling Stones... then again, there's only so much tunes you can shoehorn into a soundtrack album, right?). Capping its surface-skimming approach to both the time and the plot with an almost out-of-place happy ending, "American Dreams" and "The Wonder Years" did it all much, much better. Nothing to see here you can't see elsewhere, people... except for Julia Stiles doing the twist, that is. | 0neg
|
The 1960's were a time of change and awakening for most people. Social upheaval and unrest were commonplace as people spoke-out about their views. Racial tensions, politics, the Vietnam War, sexual promiscuity, and drug use were all part of the daily fabric, and the daily news. This film attempted to encapsulate these historical aspects into an entertaining movie, and largely succeeded.<br /><br />In this film, two families are followed: one white, one black. During the first half of the film, the story follows each family on a equal basis through social and family struggles. Unfortunately, the second half of the movie is nearly dedicated to the white family. Admittedly, there are more characters in this family, and the story lines are intermingled, but equal consideration is not given to the racial aspects of this century.<br /><br />On the whole, the acting is well done and historical footage is mixed with color and black and white original footage to give a documentary feel to the movie. The movie is a work of fiction, but clips of well-known historical figures are used to set the time-line.<br /><br />I enjoyed the movie but the situations were predictable and the storyline was one-sided. | 0neg
|
The 60s (1999) D: Mark Piznarski. Josh Hamilton, Julia Stiles, Jerry O'Connell, Jeremy Sisto, Jordana Brewster, Leonard Roberts, Bill Smitrovich, Annie Corley, Charles S. Dutton. NBC mini-series (later released to video/DVD as full length feature film) about the treacherous 1960s, as seen through the eyes of both a white family and a black family. The film's first half is driven by the excellent performance of Dutton as Reverend Willie Taylor and evenly spreads the storyline between the families. However, Dutton's character is killed halfway through and the black family is completely forgotten in a dull, incoherent, and downright awful 2nd half. RATING: 4 out of 10. Not rated (later rated PG-13 for video/DVD release). | 0neg
|
I like a lot of the actors/actresses involved in this project so being insulted by the movie felt even worse than if they used a unknowns .The main problem was this movie was clearly just a concept created to appeal to baby boomers .In 20 or 30 years Nbc will probably do a movie just like this about the early 90's . I can see it now a black family where the kids are involved with the la riot's and the white family has the kids rebel and listen to grunge rock music .The soundtrack will feature bands like Nirvana , N.W.A , Public Enemy , Soundgarden etc .The movie like this will be just as cheesy as The 60's and I gurantee you NBC will do it .See the biggest problem with period pieces when done buy networks is that when you are living in a certain time period you aren't thinking i am living in the 60's or whatever decade is trendy retro at the time .Next time someone does something like this they should put more weight into there project | 0neg
|
The '60s is an occasionally entertaining film, most of this entertainment is from laughing at the film. It is extremely uneven, and includes many annoying elements. Take for instance the switch between black & white, and color. If done right, this could of been fairly effective, but because it was done poorly , it turned into a nuisance and only detracted from the already bad experience; much of the film had an odd feel to it. The acting wasn't extremely bad for a made for TV flick, but then again it was downright embarrassing at other times. Many of the events were not coherent, and ending up being confusing. How did this family somehow end up being at many of the big events during the 1960's? The ending was much too sappy for my tastes; because it was hollywoodized, everything had to turn out right in the end. I would advise you to not waste your time on The '60s and do something else with your time. I'm glad I watched this in class, and not on my own time. I think I can safely say that the best part of the movie was the inclusion of Bob Dylan's music. Those are just my rambling thoughts on the flick. I hope you take my advice, and stay away from this. | 0neg
|
Even if you could get past the idea that these boring characters personally witnessed every Significant Moment of the 1960s (ok, so Katie didn't join the Manson Family, and nobody died at Altamont), this movie was still unbelievably awful. I got the impression that the "writers" just locked themselves in a room and watched "Forrest Gump," "The Wonder Years," and Oliver Stone's 60s films over and over again and called it research. A Canadian television critic called the conclusion of the first episode "head spinning". He was right. | 0neg
|
Somehow they summed up the 60's, ten years that radically changed our country, in four hours. And what a painful four hours it was. They trivilized the major events and happenings and they "claimed" it was about two families yet you barely saw the african-american family. If I were NBC I would be ashamed and embarrassed for airing such trash. What was amusing was this happy-go-lucky family you saw in the very beginning was tortured in so many ways, but managed to attend every major 60's event through the country. And the second family was such a non-factor. They devoted maybe five or six scenes total to this family. That poor son... Please NBC, do not make any movies about any other eras....leave that to PBS and the History Channel | 0neg
|
The only way to get anything out of this film is to approach it as a comedy. Seen in that light, it does deliver. <br /><br />If you're looking for a serious movie, look somewhere else. This film has absolutely no depth and offers little more than a cursory and one dimensional examination of "issues" with no insight whatsoever.<br /><br />Making a movie about stereotypes and then making every single character in your movie a stereotype is an extremely poor strategy - especially when those same characters only break their hackneyed molds in predictable, stereotypical ways. <br /><br />Busta Rhymes and Ice Cube make the film almost watchable, and Michael Rappaport turns in a good performance, but the script is so awful and the social commentary is so trite, it's hard to find anything redeeming. | 0neg
|
This movie masquerades as a social commentary, when in fact it is every bit as ridiculous as the very racism it condemns. The premise of this movie: African-American = Strong... any other race = weak. The worst part is when Rapaport pulls a gun on Omar Epps and a Jewish guy. The Jewish guy, in stereotypical fashion, crumbles in fear and starts pleading for his life... but the big, strong, defiant Omar Epps stands strong with no fear. We also have the condemnation of every fraternity member as being a arrogant preppie drunk or rapist. The raped white girl, of course, begins considering lesbianism since she's just a weak white girl after all. When the nerdy white guy is rejected by the fraternity members he of course must fall in with the skinheads, who are incredible cowards; especially the big muscular guy who is beaten down quickly by the strong black men. Wait... BUSTA RHYMES BEAT UP A GUY TWICE HIS SIZE??? Yeah, right.<br /><br />Of course the black men NEVER reject their own people and Omar Epps moves in with them easily. The scenes where Ice Cube threatens his white roommates and keeps them in line are just stupid -- of course he is the dominating one while his weak white roommates sit in fear of him and eventually move out. This movie was just terrible and the ending made me actually laugh out loud. The overly long slow-motion between Epps and Banks gets hilarious with the faces they make -- it's like watching my nephew and cousins making faces at each other (and they're all under 5). Do yourself a favor and skip this crapfest. | 0neg
|
This is one of the most putrid movies of the 90's. I would not recommend it if you have something better to do. <br /><br />This picture presents African-Americans as savage, uncultured, violent, inarticulate, reefer-smoking sociopaths. Fudge(Ice Cube) and his posse of homies are continuously disrespectful toward others in the dorm, not just the white people, but Asians too, and are never disciplined for their actions. Despite all that tolerance they keep on whining and crying about the evil white oppressors who run their lives and stand in their way. In fact it is Fudge's influence that causes Remmy to bond with the skin heads, to drop out of college, and eventually to kill Malik's girlfriend.<br /><br />The skinheads are presented as a covert group of underachievers who share a pad off campus and generally stay away from everyone else. They never blast their music to annoy people nor do they taunt the police. They do commit serious crime such as battery and rape, yet they're not as repulsive nor as threatening as Fudge and Dreads(Busta Rhymes) are.<br /><br />There's a lot of material in this film which almost offended me or made me giggle. Some of it is as follows below.<br /><br />Fudge and Dreads are stated as students at the Columbus University yet we never see them in class and it is completely unclear how they pay their tuition. One is only left to speculate that the weed they smoke has something to do with their finances. Though they are students at what looks like a private university, they cannot utter a single line of proper English. Their characters are developed only through their compulsive whining and xenophobia.<br /><br />It appears that drunken Kristen(Kristy Swanson) knew exactly why drunken Billy was taking her to his house. She even asked him to get a rubber so that they could begin. The fact that he penetrated her without a condom became a rape whilst it would be great sex only if he had one handy. Later Kristen was assured by Taryn(Jennifer Connely) that she holds no accountability in that matter, and despite willfully jumping into a guy's bed she wasn't ready for sexual intercourse and was viciously taken advantage of by a sexual predator. Then a week or so later she met, and slept with, an ultra-sensitive do-gooder who knew how to avoid raping and brought a condom. The director stressed contraception thoroughly.<br /><br />This movie is complete and utter garbage that makes black people look like pricks and women look stupid and frail. Cole Hauser's acting, and Laurence Fishburne's accent are the only reasons I can think of to watch it. The writer/director is obviously a man of limited intelligence. Go ahead and limit your own by watching this crap if you want, but keep in mind that neurons don't grow back. Just follow the advice at the end and UNLEARN. | 0neg
|
Yes, people are racist. People are even racist in college. That's a good point, and the issue of racism has been dealt with many times before in countless films. What sets Higher Learning apart from the pack is that it deals with the issue of racism in the most ham-fisted and predictable way possible, oh yeah it's in college too.<br /><br />This film deals with this problem of racism the way Frankenstein deals with most problems, it bashes you over the head repeatedly in a brutal and sluggish manner. Most of the characters are cartoonish, one-dimensional, caricatures (lesbian feminist, angry black man), that react to situations as dramatically and predictably as possible. Instead of defying stereotypes this film is overpopulated with them. The angry black men feel cheated, feminists hate men, etc. (one feminist even holds a sign that reads "Dead Men Don't Rape." See what I mean?) I don't want to give anything away, but in this movie if someone seems like a shifty loner or a date rapist they'll probably behave exactly how you expect them to. The changes the characters go through seems obvious to everyone but the people in the movie. The big twist in the plot hinges on whether or not the violent neo-Nazis will act like violent neo-Nazis. I'll guess you'll just have to watch to find out what happens.<br /><br />Another problem I have with this movie is that it's supposed to be "gritty" and "hard-hitting," but they make Nazis the bad guys. I agree Nazis are evil, but that's my point. Everybody thinks Nazis are bad; we're not breaking any new ground here. Nazis have been portrayed as villains since the 1930's. The film doesn't challenge any viewpoints or make bold statements. It just deals with issues we all know about in a clumsy, after-school-special like, manner. Being anti-rape, anti-racist, and anti-Nazi isn't exactly taking a hard stance on a controversial issue.<br /><br />Higher Learning is predictable, cartoonish, and in a word stupid. Avoid at all costs. | 0neg
|
Higher Learning says its OK for blacks to torment white people because they're all oppressors. most blacks in this movie are portrayed as ignorant savages. Stunning that this is supposed to be a positive movie about race. Incompetent acting, direction, and production values all contribute to this toothache of a flick. An appalling piece of trash. the perpetrators of this dreck should be ashamed. Higher Learning says its OK for blacks to torment white people because they're all oppressors. most blacks in this movie are portrayed as ignorant savages. Stunning that this is supposed to be a positive movie about race. Incompetent acting, direction, and production values all contribute to this toothache of a flick. An appalling piece of trash. the perpetrators of this dreck should be ashamed. | 0neg
|
I don't understand why people would praise this garbage. Its wrong , stupid , unrealistic , awful , and just about everything else. The film is a view on life , racial issues , prejudice , and everything else that strangely goes on in College. This is where it fails. It has no grasps on reality. From many questionable non-sense scenes in the movie such as for example<br /><br />A black man chasing down a white man with a gun, the black man and stopped by the security guards handcuffed and carried out while the gunman runs right past them.<br /><br />The same white man snipering down people from a roof topic which is stopped and beaten down by the same black man is then stopped and given a Rodney King style beating while the gun man runs free while a moment later being chased back down by only one of the four guards.<br /><br />As one previous reviewer pointed out Several white 230lbs men being beaten down by several black men weighing around 160lbs including the 105lbs Bust A Rhymes<br /><br />Another critical flaw in the film are the shallow uninteresting main characters. From the scared and confused white people and the mean , angry , and yet rightful (?) black people. Its almost as its an insult to both black and white people. I am a white male and I know many black and hispanic people who agree that this movie is wrong to portray characters and giving them those characteristics exclusively due to their race.<br /><br />The storyline which I will explain now revolves around three characters. One a black athlete , the other a confused scared white girl who questions her sexuality , and the third is a white man who is also confused and scared , then blames his problems on black people in which he becomes a nazi later in the film. They all have their share of problems and adventures including sex , rape , fights , love , hate , prejudice , racial war , and oh yeah don't forget education. Which all comes down at the end for the fatal shoot out. In which after they go back to their boring lives and think "being white is bad". Does this sound alot like your college years? Didn't think so. I don't think the director attended college especially if he were to make this awful mess.<br /><br />Overall this is a really bad , bad , ugly movie. If you want to see a more accurate view or racial issues go see American History X. If you want to see a more accurate view of college rent Porkys. Just avoid this mess. | 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.