text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
It's made in 2007 and the CG is bad for a movie made in 1998. At one part in the movie there is a stop motion shot of a dinosaur that actually looks good, but this just makes the extremely amateur work on the CG stuff look even worse.<br /><br />The writing, acting, directing and everything else in this movie is just terrible. This is as bad as, if not worse than Raptor Island and 100 million BC... pure crap! Again, as with the other movies, the only scary part about this movie is that it actually got made and is now being aired on the sci-fi channel.<br /><br />I still can't understand how they somehow get people who do have some acting skills to act in these movies and then somehow get them to act as terrible as everyone else in the movie.<br /><br />For those of you who are unsure, the other poster is obviously being sarcastic in his review... or he is one of the people who worked on this movie. | 0neg
|
This has to be one of the worst movies of all time. The graphics were horrendous, the acting was b-movie and the effects were just plain Nintendo 64 qualified. You would think that they would put a little more effort into it. Of course, it is a Scifi channel movie so you have to expect it to be low rate, but this one takes the cake. Hell, I'm still laughing. So, as a shake-your-head in disbelief movie, this one does well. <br /><br />Although it appears to have some 'known' actors and actresses in this, it is difficult for me to believe that they did not realize that the quality of this movie was worth their time and effort. <br /><br />The graphics might have been good in the '60's or even early '70's but come on, this is 2009! I wont give spoilers out, let's just say that if you have played "Jurassic Park" on the Nintendo 64 you will be very familiar with what you see in this film<br /><br />It is definitely not worth the 2 hours it took to sit through the thing | 0neg
|
I've seen plenty of Sci-Fi Channel Original movies ever since I started watching them back in 2002 (My first one was Sabretooth - which actually is one of the more entertaining Sci-Fi Channel features in my opinion). Their quality varies. Some of them are average but decent (Sabretooth, Dragon Fighter, Never Cry Werewolf, Swamp Devil), some are laughably bad, and then there are some that are truly terrible. Raptor Planet lies in the latter. <br /><br />Raptor Planet, a loose sequel to the 2004 Sci-Fi Channel Original Raptor Island, is a barely watchable mess of a film with truly horrid acting and lazy scriptwriting. The effects that bring the dinosaurs to life (a combination of puppetry and animatronics as well as CGI and stock footage from Raptor Planet) are some of the worst looking effects I've seen in a low budget film. The gore effects are even unconvincing. <br /><br />The plot involves a bunch of commandos who for some reason (I forget why) travel to a planet of alien dinosaurs. That's right folks, the dinosaurs are aliens. Dinosaurs in outer space. What's next, sharks in space?!? The rest of the plot is simple. The human cast are picked off and eaten. By now, we've come to expect this in the numerous dinosaurs movies and novels that are released, but this is the first killer dinosaur movie I've seen where I actually became bored with all the dinosaur attacks.<br /><br />There are a few chuckles in it though. There's one scene that stands out in which a man is being munched by a Carnotaur (brought to life by stock footage from the original film) that seconds later becomes a giant raptor. Also, a bit of trivia, this is the scene where Steven Baur is shooting at his own death scene from the first movie. <br /><br />While Raptor Island wasn't a good film to begin with, its a masterpiece compared to its sequel.<br /><br />Believe me when I say, this is quite possibly the worst movie Syfy has ever aired. It's darn near unwatchable. | 0neg
|
So I rented this from Netflix because somebody gave me Roger Ebert's book "I hated, hated, hated this movie" and he gave this one a rare zero-star rating in the book and said at the end of his original review "Mad Dog Time should be cut up to provide free ukulele picks for the poor". So I figured from Ebert saying that I would see if it was really as bad as he said it was. I know most society says not to listen to critics and to judge for yourself but I could not express how much I hated this piece of junk like Ebert did and never since Ebert's review of Rob Reiner's "North" where he said he hated that movie ten times had I ever heard such a brilliant hatred movie review. Here we have Richard Dreyfuss as a gangster which I don't think it would be terrible to see Dreyfuss as a gangster if the screenplay for this movie were written well. But above all the other things that were awful about this "movie" I can certainly tell you the script was not written well at all. While the movie starts off with Jeff Goldblum saying that he enjoyed watching Dreyfuss's girlfriend while Dreyfuss was at a criminal hospital the movie starts off with some decent dialog after the opening credits. But after that first 4 or 5 minutes the other 85 minutes just consists of dumb characters talking pointless garbage for 30 seconds then someone gets shot. Then there are a whole bunch of jokes about Dreyfuss being mentally ill. Haha. Not funny. Then we get an unpleasant and unfunny scene parodying Frank Sinatra's "My Way" sang by Gabriel Byrne apparently to insult Dreyfuss. Of course because the screenplay was written on the level of a sixth grader Dreyfuss shoots Byrne over five times and Byrne just will not die. Are we as the audience supposed to even care or find that mildly funny? I can certainly tell you I did not care or find that funny. Not only am I disappointed in Dreyfuss (who I admire much as an actor) for producing and starring in this tripe but I am also extremely disappointed in Jeff Goldblum because this was released the same year that "Independence Day" was the top grossing film of the year and ultimately one of the most successful films in history. Did Goldblum feel that "Independence Day" would be a flop and then just take the next role that was offered to him to make some money if "Independence Day" were a bomb? What did an Oscar winner and the star of two of the biggest money making films in history find remotely enjoyable about this? The opening sequence of "Mad Dog Time" says that the movie is set on another planet. I only wish now that I have wasted 93 minutes watching this trash that it would have stayed and opened in theaters on the planet where it supposedly takes place so that way everyone on this planet would never here of this ridiculous waste of 93 minutes out of my life that I will never get back. Ebert saying the movie should have been cut up is not good enough I am afraid. Every copy of "Mad Dog Time" should have gasoline poured all over it and be lit on fire. I have yet to top a worst movie I have ever seen because this one has won it's honor as the worst movie ever. | 0neg
|
"Mad Dog Time"..."Trigger Happy" whatever you wanna call it...simply doesn't hit the mark. Maybe its just me, maybe i just don't like Gangster comedies ( as i thought Oscar , Johney Dangerously and Mafia also sucked ) It's probably more "witty sharp wordplay" than all out Comedy, only its not as witty and sharp as it ( or the other reviewers )Make it out to be. <br /><br />The Rick , Mick , Vic Thing was old to begin with making it a running gag was at times painful to watch. <br /><br />There wasn't enough Changes of Location or Feel for the period they were supposed to be in. The Majority of the film was either set in "Dreyfus's Club" or a variety of Offices /dim rooms... ( what was with that Sit down Gun stand off thing Goldblum kept winning ?) <br /><br />The supporting cast was... on Paper excellent ( great to see Silva & Drago)but characters were killed off before they had time to develop. and Richard Pryors cameo was a Joke ! The Romance and Love element of the film also bogged it down.<br /><br />4/10 I don't think i'll return to it anytime soon. | 0neg
|
Dreyfuss plays a mob boss who lost his mind, but now he's "fixed." Lane is his girl who's been messing around with his Number One (Goldblum), who's supposed to have something going with Lane's sister (Barkin).<br /><br />With what anyone could consider an all-star supporting cast (Burt Reynolds, Gabriel Byrne, Kyle MacLachlan and even an appearance by Richard Pryor) can't help this plot, as Dreyfuss proves he's not "fixed" and tries to kill just about everyone in sight.<br /><br />You know, it's not like you didn't know what was coming. The first ten minutes were nothing but guys trying to tell Goldblum what was in store for him when Dreyfuss gets out, but I'll save you all the trouble: skip this movie.<br /><br />The actual reason I picked this movie is because I've been on a Diane Lane kick lately and have been trying to see all her movies. The real let-down for me wasn't just the terrible plot, but also the fact that she doesn't show up until the last fifteen minutes of the movie (although we hear about her all through the movie). Even being a fan of over half of the cast can't help me enjoy this film. The parts where the suspense was supposed to mount found me laughing at what was actually going on.<br /><br />3 out of 10 stars. | 0neg
|
Vic (Richard Dreyfuss) is a mob boss, leaving a mental institution, back to his world of gangsters. How can a director have a cast with Richard Dreyfuss, Ellen Barkin, Jeff Goldblum, Diane Lane (very gorgeous), Gabriel Byrne, Gregory Hines, Kyle MacLachlan, Burt Reynolds, Billy Idol and a make such a waste of time? This movie is a comedy that is not funny, having a constellation in the cast. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil):' Prazer em Matar-te!' ('Pleasure in Killing You!')<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
This is is a thoroughly unpleasant, if slickly made, movie. I tried it because it stars Richard Dreyfus and Jeff Goldblum, two good actors, and because the plot line - a mob boss is about to be released from a mental institution - sounded promising. The movie is billed as a comedy, sorta. What we have is an endless series of shots - you should pardon the pun - of people in dimly lit and elegant, if somewhat surreal, interiors, shooting each other - in the head, stomach, kneecap, foot, heart (no part of the anatomy is avoided, it seems) while uttering vague and cryptic dialogue, some of which is supposed, evidently, to be humorous in a sort of post-modern way. Goldblum's dialogue for the whole movie could fit on a 3x5 card, and he wears a single facial expression - a sardonic grin - throughout. Ellen Barkin and Gregory Hines do the best they can. Burt Reynolds does a cameo. The credits list Rob Reiner and Joey Bishop, but I somehow missed them (good move on their part). The whole thing is cold, sterile, mechanical and unsavory; an heir, I suspect, to the style of 'Pulp Fiction', 'Fargo' and 'Natural Born Killers'. If you liked those, you'll probably like this. | 0neg
|
There are often badly-matched couples (in the general sense of the term) -in Huston's movies :"African Queen" "Heaven knows Mister Allison" "roots of Heaven" "Misfits" ..."The Barbarian and the geisha" (check the title) is another good example,so to speak.It seems that Japanese stuff was trendy at the time as such works as "Sayonara" " the world of Suzie Wong" and "the teahouse of the August moon" bear witness. Huston's effort might be the worst of this rather bad lot(with the exception of "Susie " maybe).John Wayne perfectly fits in Ford's world ,in Huston's he's like a bull in a china shop.His Japanese partner is totally bland.Even the dramatic scenes (cholera epidemic) do not save the movie from absolute boredom.<br /><br />Only those utterly enamoured of Huston's every work need to choose this ,among all his other great movies around. | 0neg
|
If I had realized John Wayne was in this movie, I would not have watched it. It's demeaning to the Japanese, unfortunate for Hollywood and embarrassing to any thinking person. But then, most John Wayne movies are like that. Hollywood in the fifties still believed that everybody in the world loved Americans when the truth was (and still is) somewhat different. The movie deals with the nineteenth century isolationism of Japan. Maybe it's Hollywood that should be isolated.To put it as succinctly as possible, this film is appalling jingoistic claptrap.(Sort of a Madama Butterfly with bad music.) | 0neg
|
A comparison between this movie and 'The Last Detail' is made by some, but 'Chasers' is flatter than a stretch of Interstate highway in west Texas. And like the scenery in the desert, there's nothing much to distinguish it, not even the fact that a female prisoner is being transported by two navy escorts this time around. No one in the cast comes off too well; with this lame script that's not surprising. Dennis Hopper, the director, won't give much space to this one if he ever writes a memoir, I don't think. | 0neg
|
... so I thought I'd throw in a few words about William McNamara. Not a bad way to spend a couple of hours if you want to see him in his tighty-whities -- it's obvious he pumped up for this role and he looks pretty darn good in them -- or less. There's an extended sequence in a cave where he has to strip down to his undies. There's a nice bit where he has to chase after Miss Eleniak in the buff, with only his hands cupped over his groin. William McNamara is naturally a little on the skinny side, but he has a nice, generous handful of a booty. Also, there's a moment when he's getting out of bed that if you pause the action at just the right moment you can see the whole enchilada. If you're inclined to do so, and come on, half of the people who choose to watch a movie about Navy men on a "road trip" are. I'd just like thank Dennis Hopper for his equal opportunity gratuitous nudity. Can William McNamara act? Heck if I know. | 0neg
|
This is simply the worst movie I've ever seen. Neither of the three central characters has any charm, and Erika's good looks aren't enough to carry the film. The lamest plot I've ever had inflicted upon me. Also the most unconvincing military comedy ever. Why did they bother? | 0neg
|
What a dreadful film this is. The only reason you would want to sit through this mess is the pleasurable sight of Miss Eleniak. The painful overacting of Mr McNamara, which became embarrassing at times, ruined what might have been a reasonable film if the correct actors had been cast. Mr McNamara is no Tom Cruise, the actor he obviously wants to be. | 0neg
|
This movie down-shifts from 4th into 1st without bothering with 3rd or 2nd, grinding gears all the way to the sappy, b-movie finish-line. The con at the beginning is easily the best and cleverest part of the movie. That is worth seeing. The scene with Harlow in the bathtub occurs so fast, you may miss it. Definitely not worth all the ballyhoo provided by Robert Osborne in his TCM intro to this bad-to-mediocre confusion. There is no real conflict, and all of the characters in this supposed fringe society turn out to be saints - especially the unbelievable character, Al. I wonder if he's got a job for me in Cincinnati? | 0neg
|
This is one of the very worst films Clark Gable made. Only PARNELL was obviously worse. It is just so painfully clichéd and the dialog is so lousy that it is something neither Gable nor Jean Harlow should have been proud of making.<br /><br />Gable is a heel whose illegal activities result in his girl going' to the slammer (like the gangster talk?). She holds out hope that he'll do the right thing but he just leaves her there--unknown to either of them, gosh, that she's "in the family way". Eventually, the rogue returns to do the right thing and somehow they tie this all together into a happy ending! They seemed to have forgotten about Gable's needing to take the rap and spend several years in the hoosegow. Leonard Maltin says "the stars are at their best here". By what standard? Best at producing unintended chuckles? Gimme a break!<br /><br />PS--after saying this, my wife thinks Leonard Maltin is going to find me and kick my butt. Hmmm. However, despite my comment, I think Mr. Maltin is the finest reviewer and human being on the planet (I hope that appeased him).<br /><br />UPDATE--2/2/08. Because I disliked this film so much the first time (especially the ridiculous ending), I decided to watch it once again. After all, sometimes when I watch a film again I like it much more and realize that I was a bit too harsh. While that has been the case with several films in recent months, I still disliked this film--even the second time. Most of it was not because of the first half of the film. In the first half, Harlow's character was amazingly stupid but at least it was believable. But when she was sent to prison, it was all clichés until the final ridiculous marriage scene occurred. The bottom line is that this sequence is embarrassingly dumb--it just makes no sense at all and is akin to turning the movie into some wacky fairy tale instead of a love story about two cons. I stand by my original review (despite all the "NOT HELPFULS") and think that aside from PARNELL and possibly POLLY AT THE CIRCUS, it might just be the worst Gable film. | 0neg
|
Oh yes, Sakura Killers is a goofy, horrible ninja movie, make no mistake. But it's also an incredibly enjoyable one. This is largely thanks to the awesome presence of one Chuck Connors, who is billed as starring in the movie but really only shines in a few scenes. I suppose he's supposed to be sort of an Obi Wan Kenobi type ("The tough ninja-buster", the box copy exclaims) but his 'wisdom' is laughable. "Move without thinking"??? My friend says this is the sign of mental retardation, not of supreme concentration.<br /><br />But really, his two aides, Sonny and Dennis, have such horrible dialogue that 'Brooklyn', as we call The Colonel, tends to shine in comparison. Especially watch for Dennis' logic regarding the 'genetic splicing' the Sakura are involved with. If you know anything about cloning you will die laughing. And yes, this is a major plot point, folks.<br /><br />A terribly fun movie, Sakura Killers is a hard-to-find gem. I won't spoil the 'trick' ending for you either, except that it's a perfect set up for a Sakura Killers 2. Too bad Chuck Connors died. :-( Because he does have a the smoothest ways of blowing away ninjas. | 0neg
|
I'm in awe! Wow, prepare to be blown away by the uncanny ways of the ninja. Watch them as they pounce, crawl along the ground (on their backs or stomachs) like a caterpillar, fly through the sky, climb buildings, hide and spring from trees, throw about ninja stars, role out blue welcome mats, disappear in smoke bombs, make a lot of swoosh noises with their blades and quickly sneaking or trotting about on their toes. What a sight! Really I could go on about the many traditional actions, but I'll be here all day. Oh not to forget we even get the legendary Chuck Connors popping up now and again, and watch him dispatch some ninjas with his shotgun with little ease. What class! What a badass! Anyhow the ultra-cheap 'Sakura Killers' is some stupid, but cheesy ninja action fun that only fanatics of the genre would get anything out of this shonky b-grade debacle.<br /><br />A genetic lab in America has a very important video that's stolen by a couple of ninjas. Two Americans are sent to Japan by the Colonel (Chuck Connors) to retrieve it.<br /><br />The opening of the feature sets it up nicely. Get ready for the laughs! Afterwards it slows down, but soon after the two main protagonists learns about the ninja and goes through the training it gets a head of steam as they break in costumes and fled after the stolen beta tape that contains a very important formula. This is when the violently swift action and aerobic marital arts really come in to play. It's not too shoddy either, (like the moronic script and daft performances). The final climatic showdown is very well done.<br /><br />In the slow stretches it has the two Americans (Mike Kelly and George Nicholas) looking in to the case, sharing brainless conversations and encountering some minor problems. What made me laugh was how the ninjas were put off by how brave and clever these two were. These were supposed to be professional killers? Director Dusty Nelson ('Effects (1989)') does an earnest job with what he had and plays it for what it is. He centres the on-screen activities around striking Taiwan locations. The score is a chintzy arrangement. | 0neg
|
SAKURA KILLERS (1+ outta 5 stars) Maybe in 1987 this movie might have seemed cool... if you had never ever seen a *good* ninja movie. Cheesy '80s music... cheesy dialogue... cheesy acting... and way-beyond-cheesy martial arts sequences. The coolest scene is at the beginning... with an aged Chuck Connors playing golf on a beach... several black clad ninjas try to sneak up on him and it looks like he is too intent on hitting his ball to notice... suddenly he reaches into his golf bag and... naw, I won't spoil it for you... if you ever have the misfortune of seeing this movie you'll thank me. The story is a lot of nonsense about some stolen videotape or something. A bunch of dim-bulb Caucasian heroes are trained in the ways the ninja because "only a ninja can fight a ninja" or something like that. Strange, these guys don't seem to fight any better after their training than before... oh well, the movie does move along pretty briskly. The fight scenes may not be great.. but they are plentiful... and the overdone sound effects are good for a few chuckles. | 0neg
|
Two old buddies are sent to Japan to get back results of a genetic research containing videotape, which is stolen by the black suited ninjas at the beginning of the movie. First they just have to learn some ninja skill, because "only ninja can beat the ninja."<br /><br />Sakura killers tries hard to be enjoyable ninja-flick but fails that badly. The whole movie is just so hollow and predictable that is hard to say anything good about it: Same plot has been seen in different variations dozens of times before, characters are too briefly drawn, direction is dull and script doesn't offer anything surprising, even in the ending scene, which by itself reduced movie's (trash)value.<br /><br />Even 80's ninja-flick-fan, who understands the esthetic of trash-movies, is hard to find this movie even barely enjoyable. It simply doesn't offer anything new to viewer, neither in visual level nor in plot. Shurikens are thrown and katanas are swinging, but it's not enough to lead the movie direction it meant to be and recurred similar fighting scenes numbs even the most calloused viewer after the first 30 minutes.<br /><br />It's hard to recommend movie to anyone. Even Franco Nero's clumsy performance in "Enter the Ninja" falls behind Sakura killer's American-ninjas. Even in visual level movie doesn't have any balls and it's waste of time to try to find any great fighting scenes in this movie: There isn't any. In all, one of the most futile ninja-flicks, I've ever seen. Doesn't interest even in curiosity. Trust me on this one.<br /><br />½ out of 10. | 0neg
|
This movie's one of my favorites. It's not really any good, but it's great to laugh at. The dialogue can become incredibly ludicrous and poorly acted (eg, "Manji, can we ask you a few questions?" "Sure." "We think you can help us with the answers.") Any fighting is more or less surrealistic. Make sure to watch for Brock, the oafy white guy who attacks the main characters. He only has two lines, but he's one of the best guys in the movie! | 0neg
|
Skip Mission: Galactica and watch the original Living Legend episodes instead. The network took parts 1 & 2 of Living Legend and jammed them into one plot with the awful Fire In Space episode. Although Galactica suffered from network-controlled writing and a lack of time to prepare for a proper production, Living Legend is the best of the 1978 TV series. Fire in Space, on its own, is one of the worst episodes. As a historical note, watch Galactica, the original Star Trek, and then the revival Trek series, and you'll see the difference in quality between network-produced sci-fi and syndicated sci-fi. | 0neg
|
The Derek's have over the 1980s produced a few decent bids to acquire the title "worst movie of all time", and this is probably their prime achievement in these stakes. In fact, this film can be regarded as belonging to the "so bad, it's good" category, right up there with the products of the likes of Edward Wood Jr. or Doris Wishman. This explains the IMDb voting pattern for this film with some people handing out top marks.<br /><br />Anthony Quinn made the odd dodgy film in his time, but this performance as a randy ghost is so incredibly bad, it has to be seen to be believed. | 0neg
|
I saw this obvious schlock fest on a video store shelf. And before i got my first VCR I figured I'd christen it with this little gem and it's bad film-making at it's finest!<br /><br />The dialog is inadvertently hilarious. And it contains a cameo with Donald Trump. Anthony Quinn is in it inexplicably. And much like Christopher Walken seemed to want to star in every bad movie in his later years. This movie is Mr. Quinn's Country Bears.<br /><br />It features lines like, "Shut up and let me FIGHT!!!"<br /><br />And "You're saying a lot of sh_it!" <br /><br />And the priceless comeback: "Unfortunately it is sh_it, tough angry sh_it!"<br /><br />You'll be awed by a fight scene as Bo does a SOMMERSAULT across a billiard table! And does a nice kung fu kick when she comes up from the roll! Chop socky action and T and A thrills!!!<br /><br />What schlock movie fan could ask for more? Oh, and when Mr. Quinn's character commits suicide and and comes back to haunt Bo as a ghost she asks him why he killed himself rather then deal with his debilitating illness? He says, "Real men don't eat quiche."<br /><br />Uh, aaa, yeah. If Bo was a smart cookie she woulda called for an exorcist right then and there! | 0neg
|
The Dereks did seem to struggle to find rolls for Bo after "10".<br /><br />I used to work for a marine park in the Florida Keys. One day, the script for "Ghosts Can't Do It" was circulating among the trainers in the "fish house" where food was prepared for the dolphins. There was one scene where a -dolphin- supposedly propositions Bo (or Bo the dolphin), asking to "go make eggs." Reading the script, we -lauuughed-...<br /><br />We did not end up doing any portion of this movie at our facility, although our dolphins -were- in "The Big Blue!"<br /><br />This must have been very close to the end of Anthony Quinn's life. I hope he had fun in this film, as it certainly didn't do anything for his legacy. | 0neg
|
I've now watched all four Bo Derek vehicles directed by her husband, John; all are quite terrible, of course, but this is certainly the pits. Featuring the usual flimsy plot, bad scripting by the director, naturally and acting, not to mention gratuitous nudity by the star, it deals with her losing much older husband Anthony Quinn (she accepts his shotgun suicide by saying he had always admired Hemingway!!) but who continues to appear and talk to her. In fact, he wants to come back in another, younger body
but actually does so only in the very last scene! Derek is lovely as always, and still playing naïve(!) especially during a muddled mid-section which has her pursued by a hired killer at a spa. Quinn, too, is typically larger-than-life (read: hammy) here, but this easily constitutes his nadir; besides, for much of the duration, he acts from behind a piece of shiny plastic (presumably suggesting his being in some sort of limbo)! His 'replacement', then, is obviously a handsome-looking stud who hasn't a lick of talent or even personality. Also featured in the cast are Hollywood veterans Don Murray (as Quinn's best friend and Bo's business consultant) and Julie Newmar (as Quinn's guardian angel in the afterlife) plus a surprising cameo appearance by billionaire Donald Trump (who presumably needed this on his resume')! It also goes without saying that John Derek was his own cinematographer on the film, that the end credits are filled with useless (and corny) expressions of gratitude to the many people who lent a helping hand, and that GHOSTS CAN'T DO IT swept the board at the 1990 Razzie Awards! | 0neg
|
With a Bo Derek movie, the audience get just what they expect. A paper thin plot and a few shots of Mrs. Derek in no clothes. 'Ghosts can't do it' is just that. The first fifteen minutes is ordinary TV drama, as long as Scott [Anthony Quinn] is still alive. He is a very good actor with long experience in a lot of different roles, but it seems as even a famous actor need to work just for money sometimes. Bo Derek is the opposite, always playing a strikingly handsome young woman with or without clothes. The movie is a complete waste of time. If you want to see Quinn, rent Lawrence of Arabia or La Strada. If you want to see nude women or bad acting, rent any porno movie. | 0neg
|
Michael Caine has always claimed that Ashanti was "the only film (he) did purely for the money" as well as "the worst film he ever starred in". Hold on, Michael, weren't you in The Swarm and Hurry Sundown? And weren't both of those films a good deal worse than Ashanti? Perhaps Caine remembers only too begrudgingly the physically punishing demands of filming an action film in searing 130 degrees Fahrenheit temperatures (the director, Richard Fleischer, was hospitalised as a result of sun-stroke during the shoot). What Ashanti actually emerges as is not the career low-point of Michael Caine. Instead, it is a very average chase thriller with a talented cast, exotic locations, boring stretches and a highly formulaic storyline.<br /><br />Dr. David Linderby (Caine) is a W.H.O medic who is left devastated when his black wife Anansa (Beverly Johnson) goes missing during an aid trip to an African tribal village. Linderby gradually realises that his wife has been snatched by slave traders - led by Suleiman (Peter Ustinov) - and he sets off on a continent-wide pursuit which eventually leads to the Middle East.<br /><br />Along the way, big stars pop in for ineffective and superfluous guest roles. William Holden has a poor cameo as a chopper pilot; Omar Sharif displays little of his customary charm or grace as a pampered Arab millionaire; Rex Harrison looks rightfully bored during his brief role as a helpful contact who assists Caine in his quest. The film is based on a best-seller entitled Ebano, by the little-known author Alberto Vasquez-Figueroa, but the suspense that made the book so popular is largely absent in this adaptation. Ustinov is charismatic as the slaver (he seems in all his movies to be incapable of giving bad performances), and Caine generates believable anguish as the man who thinks he'll never see his wife again. There are occasional flashes of action, but on the whole Ashanti is quite slow-moving. All in all, it is a resistible piece of action hokum - not by any stretch as awful as Caine has frequently suggested, but not a very inspiring film and certainly a let-down from all the talent involved. | 0neg
|
I saw this recently with my wife and discovered it's better than Caine believes, although it's not much cop. Britain's greatest ever screen actor does not seem too interested in this role, which is a pity as he might have elevated it with more conviction in his playing. Rex Harrison seems even less bothered, perhaps unsurprisingly, as his character is very poorly written. William Holden is better, but his screen time is fleeting and, again, his character is not well scripted.<br /><br />Beverly Johnson is as beautiful a woman as I have ever seen, but is given very little to do, the film might have gained a great deal by concentrating more on her story. Ustinov steals the show, but basically by playing a comic character quite out of keeping with the film's serious tone. The music is poor and Omar Sharif makes one of his many pointless cameos (his career has been based on this for decades now).<br /><br />Richard Fleischer has to be blamed for not directing this more effectively, he was an infuriatingly unpredictable film director, and this is one of his weaker movies. | 0neg
|
If Ashanti had been a serious attempt at a film about the institution of slavery, still prevalent in third world countries the film might have been better received. Instead it turns into a star studded disaster of a movie where the stars came in, said their lines, and picked up their paychecks without much conviction.<br /><br />Michael Caine and his wife Beverly Johnson work for the United Nations World Health Organization and are busy doing their humanitarian thing in East Africa. Along comes Peter Ustinov who can barely summon enough ham in him to make a go of the part as a Moslem slave dealer. As Johnson is black he grabs her anyway along with a lot of children and a few adults as well.<br /><br />Of course Caine doesn't take kindly to the kidnapping and the rest of the film is spent in a rescue attempt. The rest of the cast has such folks as William Holden, Rex Harrison, Omar Sharif and Indian film star Kebir Bedi in parts and looking so incredibly bored with the whole thing.<br /><br />Usually in something like this talented people like those mentioned above will just overact outrageously and feast on a diet of scenery. But Ashanti doesn't even have that going for it.<br /><br />What an incredible waste of time. The aroma of tax write off is permeating the air. | 0neg
|
The worst, and chock full of people who really ought to know better, (the cast have six Oscars between them). It's set in 'contemporary' Africa, (it was made in 1979), and is about the slave trade. It's appallingly scripted and acted, (Michael Caine, Peter Ustinov and William Holden reach a career low in this one), and completely lacks excitement never mind any moral focus. It's also ludicrously plotted. You don't for a minute believe that any of the characters would behave in the way they do under these circumstances. Richard Fleischer directs but you get the impression it was over the telephone. This is as bad as it gets. | 0neg
|
There seem to have been any number of films like this released during the 70's. And the fact that I cannot recollect the title to a single one of them off-hand is a measure of their impact. These are what novelists would call 'pot-boilers'. They are scarcely more than a vehicle for keeping movie-stars in the public eye.<br /><br />We have Micheal Caine, Peter Ustinov, Omar Sharif, Rex Harrison and William Holden; more than enough names to get bums on cinema seats. Every taste in hero is catered for. Though one suspects that most of the audience still went away disappointed.<br /><br />Their talents are simply thrown away, and I wonder that stars with so much money and such reputation can be yet so desperate or lacking in good sense. This sort of movie hardly adds gilding to a CV. Sometimes maybe actors should choose their director instead of the other way round.<br /><br />It was pretty obvious that it would be crap even from the outset. That ludicrously mismatched jaunty-jazz theme music, which also percolated up every time some incidental noise is needed, had all the atmospheric conviction of elevator Muzak. Who imagined employing a jazz band when a scene depicted the steamy jungles of central Africa, or the endless Sahara with camels and palms as a backdrop? Definitely a serious goof-ball. Ennio Morricone would have known what to do; and his results would have oozed enough atmosphere and tension to raise my rating a good two points. This director should have taken the trouble to watch 'Lawrence of Arabia', or even Sergio Leone's westerns; he might have learnt a few things. But then again, probably he wouldn't.<br /><br />Alfred Hitchcock played the disappearing wife theme to good effect in his film 'Frantic'. It was later remade with equal panache staring Harrison Ford. In each case the confusion surrounding her loss and the tension of the chase was tangible. Here, when Michael Caine might be otherwise compelled to employ a little brain and bravado, Rex Harrison kept popping-up out of no-where like some wily old genii, to put him back on track whenever the narrative stumbled. <br /><br />At least the photography was rather good, with excellent use of the often beautiful environment. But then the dumb music must pipe-up and blow to atoms what little ambiance this created.<br /><br />Action scenes were also contrived and stilted, with such ineptly choreographed fight sequences that they might have been staged in a first-year drama class. And, of course, the players must fight to a jazz accompaniment - as you do.<br /><br />And that's about as much comment as this item deserves. Except to say that the script was pretty wretched as well.<br /><br />Stick with your hobby on this one. Even if it contained your favourite movie-stars, you're sure to be disappointed too. | 0neg
|
The story at the outset is interesting: slavery in the (late) 20th century from west Africa to the Arab Middle East. The problem with it is that it intentionally castigates two of director Richard Fleisher's favorite enemies: Arabs and Germans. To make us believe that very Arab-looking men would be free to roam around and easily catch Blacks in West Africa is as believable as Whites hunting for slaves in "Roots". Obviously both trades are/were run by locals and involve(d) much more sophisticated networks. While Arab countries are complicit in today's child and sex slave trade, Israel is one of the worst violators according to Amnesty International. So why only point out Arabs and then choose a German as the only European buyer? It's obvious bias and hatred of those people by a Jewish director.<br /><br />The acting is above average, especially by Peter Ustinov (Suleiman) and Kabir Bedi (Malik). Michael Caine (Dr. Linderby) is good as always. | 0neg
|
I hope the viewer who regards 'Dream Machine' as one of Corey Haim's finest and the "best movies of the century" was kidding. Undetected sarcasm on my part? I sincerely hope so.<br /><br />'The Dream Machine' marks the first of a long line of mediocre capers that would plague the rest of Corey Haim's career (except 'Prayer of the Rollerboys' which was surprisingly decent). Here, Haim plays nonchalant college boy, Bernie, who supposes that a cool car will attract his dream girl's attention. Lucky for Bernie, a rich woman aiming to get back at her cheating husband, hastily decides to reward her faithful piano tuner--Bernie--with a gift: a slick Porsche Turbo. However, unbeknownst to the woman, and unfortunate for Bernie, is that her dead husband was murdered and his body was hidden in the trunk. Now, being that in this movie, bodies don't seem to decay or possess a rather foul funk, Bernie is unaware of this. In fact, the oblivious boy has no idea that something suspicious is afoot despite several odd circumstances that arise. In particular, a grizzly man follows him around, desperate to get hold of that body relatively undetected.<br /><br />This is a low-grade action fizzle as many of Haim's films like this are (see The Double O Kid). Despite being part action, part romantic comedy, this movie fails to offer the viewer much of anything of interest for at least the first forty-five minutes in which the filmmakers take more than enough time to show the immediate problem (i.e. Bernie being in possession of a car and a dead body, and a hit-man finding out that the Porsche is going to be hard to find). After which, and thanks to poor acting by Haim (I loved this kid, too, but it's not exactly sacrilegious to admit the times when he obviously couldn't act well) and the lack of real immediacy and emergency between Bernie and the villain that makes much of the events unconvincing and as a result, inappreciable. To add injury to insult, the soundtrack was unbelievably laughable and sounded more like self-evident songs you would hear in Team America (see the 'date' montage).<br /><br />Loyal Corey Haim fans, however, should not be disappointed to see their boy in abundance. However, others understanding that Haim's career probably peaked when he was 14 or 15 and never recovered, might expect mediocrity, as will viewers just looking for early 90s b-comedy fluff to pass the time. | 0neg
|
This week, I just thought it would be fun to catch up with Corey Haim, with just having seen the two "Lost Boys" films last week and all. Not that I'm a fan-boy - not by far - but I did like those two Coreys in some films back in my early teen days.<br /><br />So, I prepared myself for three films starring him. Unfortunately, I picked "Dream Machine" as a first (never seen it before), and it was so godawfully horrible, I just decided to lock Corey back in my closet and let him sober up again first, before I pop in something else of his. But I managed to struggle my way through this film first. I had the impression it desperately wanted to play in the same league as "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" (1986) but got caught up in its own delusions. Practically the whole film it wants to be a comedy and near the end it hopelessly tries to be a thriller. The only good thing about "Dream Machine" is the premise: A dead body in the trunk of a Porsche. All the rest fails so badly, it's embarrassing. Even the most for Haim. I can dig him being his young, enthusiastic self, but at least when he comes with some form of directorial guidelines. This clearly wasn't the case in "Dream Machine". So, we have a perfect car, yes, that black Porsche. Haim's perfect girlfriend? Just a blonde chick who hardly has any lines in the film. The perfect murder... almost? Some dude that falls flat on his ass as the villain of the film, trying the whole movie to steal the body back out of the trunk, never really succeeds, and then at the end of the film thinks he's Michael Myers (minus the white William Shatner mask) and mistakes Corey Haim for Jamie Lee Curtis. Don't think they could have made this flick any lamer if they tried. A stupid, unfunny film with a story that leads to nowhere directed by a director that doesn't know how to direct his cast. Great accomplishment!<br /><br />One last question for Mr. Haim: Who's idea was it to have you smile directly into the camera in that last shot of the movie? Yours or the director's? So not done. | 0neg
|
I'm a big Porsche fan, and the car was the best star in this film.<br /><br />Haim, the now dried up drug abusing child star of the 80's is bland as per usual, and commenting on back up from minor characters/actors would be pointless; needless to say they were all very average. It's a cool movie as a trip down memory lane into the 80's - with some weird clothes, some good shots of the Colorado backdrop and a very harmless albeit mind numbing plot.<br /><br />All in all, please don't waste your time watching this unless you love 80's movies, Corey Haim, or like myself, love old school Porsches (this one in particular looks great) because life's too short to watch crappy movies. | 0neg
|
Well, TiVo recorded this because of Angelina Jolie. It had 2.5 stars. It seemed promising. It went downhill fast.<br /><br />There is much overacting, even from Angelina. She's about 20 and playing a 16 year old. There are three characters that are supposed to be Italian. Everyone else is Italian- American. The native Italian accents were good, I thought. The young male lead is cute, my wife says. Everyone else in this movie is a fat Italian woman. Even the men.<br /><br />I should have known that when Dick Van Patten was cast as a randy doctor, that that was a bad sign. The two couples chasing their kids around are like the four Italian Stooges.<br /><br />My wife would not let go of the remote. Hopefully she was not taking makeup, clothing or decorating tips. It was a sick and twisted combination of hideous and garish. It was hidegarishous.<br /><br />Cutting off my left ventricle was not sufficient to distract from the pain of watching this movie. If this movie shows up on your TV, do yourself a favor and ram your head through the TV screen instead. You'll be glad you did. The only movie I've ever seen that was worse than this was "Hamburger: The Movie". Or maybe "Deadly Friend". | 0neg
|
OMG this is one of the worst films iv ever seen and iv seen a lot I'm a Film student. I don't understand why Angelina Jolie would be in this movie? Did she need the money that badly? I love AJ and have seen almost everything shes ever been in so i watched this 2 tick another one off. It was SOO bad! not even good bad, just bad bad. It had 1 or 2 funny little moments but all in all it was bad n a waste of 101 minutes. I cant even say AJ looked good in it because well she didn't. The plot is predictable unless you r expecting a re-telling of Romeo and Juliet then its not. All round disappointing. Maybe if your 12 this could be a good film otherwise I really don't recommend it. | 0neg
|
I only saw this movie once, and that was enough for me. The movie has very little if any plot and seems to be nothing but continuous scenes of psycho-sadistic violence and very little of anything else. I wanted to see this movie because it starred Zoe Trilling of the second "Night of The Demons;" and I wanted to see her playing someone normal. Unfortunately, the Tobe Hooper script barely begins and goes nowhere as Robert Englund dominates the film and chews up the scenery and plot. Zoe, I know where you are now; hiding from this film ! | 0neg
|
I don't know much about Tobe Hooper, or why he gets his name in the title, but maybe he shouldn't have bothered. As another commenter mentioned, there isn't really enough horror or erotica to bring in fans of either genre. The plot is incoherent, the Sade sequences are gratuitous, and most of the acting is so-so. Englund was doing his best with weak material, and Zoe Trilling has a really great bottom, but neither is enough to carry this film. This one's a tape-over. Grade: F | 0neg
|
The Marquis De Sade, Egypt, ancient Gnostic cults, Robert Englund in a dual role, gratuitous sex and nudity, murder and mayhem... on paper Tobe Hopper's Night Terrors sounds like it should be at least a fun, entertaining flick given the ingredients. It's not. It is a plot less, incoherent shambles that brings little entertainment. There is basically no plot beyond some vague stuff about a cult that follows the work of De Sade who for some unclear reason feel the need to seduce the daughter of a local Christian archaeologist and kill her. That is pretty much it- I think it has something to with the Gnostics but who knows what the writers were thinking. Most of the movie is a meandering mess as the heroine is exposed to various weirdness, dream sequences and erotic encounters, intercut with scenes of Englund as the imprisoned De Sade in the 19th century chewing the scenery. It seems like the makers were trying for something serious but whatever their pretensions were they are buried in the cheesiness, bad acting, sleaze and fake looking decapitated heads.<br /><br />There aren't too many good points. Robert Englund is fun to watch, as always and the lead actress, Zoe Trilling, whilst not very talented, is attractive and in various stages of undress through the movie but watching Night Terrors is a chore. At least I got to see the movie from which the "When you're as criminal as I" bit from the Australian film certification ratings guide that was on the front of so many VHS tapes from the nineties came from. | 0neg
|
Genie (Zoe Trilling) arrives in Egypt to visit her hypocritical, bible-quoting archeologist father (William Finley) and attracts the attention of a group of cultists led by a descendant of the Marquis de Sade (Robert Englund). Englund also plays de Sade in flashbacks, ranting in his cell. Genie is led astray by Mohammed (Juliano Merr), who rides around naked on a horse and Sabina (Alona Kamhi), a bisexual who introduces her to opium smoking, which leads to a wild hallucination featuring topless harem dancers, a woman simulating oral sex on a snake, an orgy and her father preaching in the background! Meanwhile, black hooded cult members decapitate, gouge out eyeballs and slit throats. When Genie is slipped drugs in her tea, she imagines de Sade hanging from a cross, a gold-painted woman in a leafy g-string and herself bloody on a bed covered in snakes. It's all because she's the reincarnation of de Sade's lost love.<br /><br />This typically sleazy Harry Alan Towers production is redundant, seedy and pretty senseless, but the sets, costumes, cinematography and location work are all excellent and at least there's always something going on.<br /><br />Score: 3 out of 10 | 0neg
|
Tobe Hooper is quite possibly the biggest fluke the horror genre has to offer. Like any other horror fan, I loved the Texas Chainsaw, but I think that in order to put your name in front on a movie title, you should have at least more than one hit movie. I can't really think of any other movie Hooper has done (on his own, don't count Poltergeist) that has really made an impact on the horror genre or film world. And this movie, Night Terrors, just backs up my point.<br /><br />Poor Robert Englund, I give him credit for at least doing a good job with the awful material he was given. He did what he could. As for the movie itself? Pure drudge. Unnecessary nude scenes every five minutes, a story that must have been penned in an our, and really just awful scenery, music, and cinematography. Nothing in this film is redeemable. Don't waste your time.<br /><br />Overall, 1 out of 10. I feel sorry for Hooper, his career seems like it was over before it really ever got started. I hope that he's able to pump out at least one more good flick, that way he can do his cult status some justice.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
This is one of those movies you see in the video store that you just HAVE to get because it just looks so horribly bad. And indeed, we couldn't take most of it. There was a lot of fast-forwarding going on.<br /><br />But then we came across a scene where Robert Englund seduces the female protagonist (her name somehow slips my mind at this time). CRIPES. I've never watched a single scene from a film so many times (I'm estimating forty or so). And I've never laughed so hard in my life. You see, Englund has this thing for showing off his loins. I last saw the film a couple months ago, but I can't stop laughing as I type. Anyway, the scene is a montage of shots-- Englund ripping off the lingerie of the girl, Englund riding a horse naked, and some mysterious woman fellating a snake's head. This is absolute genius. You've got to see it for yourself. | 0neg
|
I found the characters mediocre and the story uninteresting. I never had to read this book (thankfully), or it would have been a painful experience. I got the tickets to the preview for free but it still wasn't worth my time, or my friend's. I think this story is not worth telling. It's like saying that old people have a past before they got old (no kidding). The lives of the main characters were painful to watch, one generation no better than the next at avoiding stupid mistakes. However, I think the actors did the best they could with a lame story. I've always been a big fan of Ellen Burstyn. I'm writing this review to counteract the positive reviews given, which unfortunately convinced me to give this movie a try. | 0neg
|
Oh, dear lord.... They've turned what was a fairly thought provoking movie into a swaggering testosterone fest.<br /><br />The original 1971 version of this movie was beautifully vague about our hero Kowalski. He was a man trying to drive from Denver to San Fransisco to win a bet. Why was he willing to risk his life for the price of a handful of uppers? We're not really sure.<br /><br />We had a few flashbacks that gave us the picture that he was an adrenaline junkie, and presumably he had led his entire life trying to make it to the vanishing point. That point you see off in the distance where the left and right shoulders of the road come together, and the road itself vanishes. He lives only to be free, and means no ill on anyone. We saw several times when there were accidents he stopped to make sure the other driver was okay before moving on, even the cops that were chasing him.<br /><br />When he saw the futility of his quest he took his life rather than be arrested and live a life of captivity. He died like he lived, running wide open.<br /><br />In the remake Kowalski has a whole history (including a first name, even.) He's trying to get to the hospital where his wife is suffering from complications to her pregnancy. He is a devoted husband, and excited expectant father. He comes to the decision to take his life after hearing his wife died in delivery, but they even leave THAT in question when they suggest that he may have jumped out of the car before it ran into the bulldozers. They even gave the part of "super soul," the blind DJ (brilliantly portrayed by Clevon Little in the original) to JASON PRIESTLY?!?!?!?!?!? Give me a break. | 0neg
|
Yuck! And again I say...YUCK! The original version of this movie was a well directed story of a man who was already dead and driving through purgatory. The original movie had a lot to say and didn't go out of its way to say it. And, it had a naked chick on a motorcycle.<br /><br />This version strikes me as something that a producer bought the rights to and then abandoned out of disinterest. It looks as if a group of individuals consciously decided to fit it to the nineties and changed ethnicities and genders just to be cute. The movie is not about a burnout about to commit suicide in a last act of defiance. It is about a man trying to get to a hospital to see his wife.<br /><br />There was no reason for this movie to have been made other than to make me angry... | 0neg
|
Movies like these are to the originals what Album Oriented Rock stations are to what music used to be like - repetitive, boring, and drained of all the original energy by a committee of corporate drones. I AM glad that Aragorn wasn't typecast as an expectant psycho by this P.O.S. Go back and watch the 1971 version, count the things that would NEVER be included in a modern version, and thank whatever deity you worship that someone somewhere in the distant past had the balls to write and shoot an original concept movie that wasn't based on someone else's ideas, and wasn't passed through a corporate board before it saw the light of day. | 0neg
|
This is just plain bad. Sometimes remakes, even if they stray from the original, are good on their own. They can bring another viewpoint and achieve a certain interpretation that makes them unique and enjoyable. This was as poorly thought out and carried out as can be. This wasn't any good even standing on it's own. Viggo Mortenson is a top-notch actor, but some of his selections of roles and projects leaves something to be desired. The original "Vanishing Point" was such a thrilling, psychological adventure; this is not an adventure at all, and is not enjoyable or entertaining whatsoever. This was made from a by-the-numbers approach to film-making, stuffing in plot points that someone in Hollywood believes will please what they see as today's film-going audience. Basically, they see us as a bunch of idiots. It's insulting that someone will put this out as a feature film, and even attempt to remake a cult classic this sloppily. The manipulative plot devices, the "make-it-obvious-so-they-don't-miss-the-point" aspects, ridiculous dialogue, stereotyped characters, amateurish direction...<br /><br />This is plain bad.... | 0neg
|
This is a terrible remake of a marginal, but well liked, movie from the early 70's. I have seen the original at least 6 times. The 1997 version is a 20 minute movie 'crammed' into 2 hours or whatever the runtime is. Cheesy storyline, which by the way, is completely different than the original. The major government involvement was far-fetched. There is no flow from one scene to the next. In the original you could go get a beer or hit the bathroom and still keep up. <br /><br />It only took a few hours movie time to change the oil pan on the car. It takes many times longer than that in real life. Car guys notice this stuff. Also, the fool or fools that chose to trash a 1968 Charger and abuse a 1970 Challenger should be shot in the heel with a dull bullet. The fact they aren't 'car people' is painfully obvious, and their passing will not be grieved. <br /><br />The actors lacked any emotion, everything was cut and dried. One step above a monotone. A barmitzvah is more exciting and energetic.<br /><br />Last but surely not least, the radio DJ made the statement that the Challenger hit the bulldozers at 180 or 185 (??). That is total garbage. Can you say aerodynamics, or lack thereof?? Hahahaha!! This movie is a joke. Don't waste your time watching this one. | 0neg
|
This movie represents the times it was made in as much as the original, i suppose. Which is really sad, because at a deeper level, the title 'Vanishing Point' the original, is so ironic. I'm sure it wasn't intended that way, but the original was filmed in 1970, and released in 1971. The REAL 'VANISHING POINT' was the end of an era, which pretty much ended in the early 1970s. <br /><br />In this remake, all the counter-cultural elements have been stripped away, and been rendered more PC in an attempt to reach a broader audience, presumably. "Sanitized for your Protection" <br /><br />Inserting the American Indian scenes was gratuitous, and the idea of a 'noble purpose' to the trip was subtraction by addition. I'm glad I watched it however, it made me appreciate the original that much more. The original is a cult classic and golden. This remake is dreadful. | 0neg
|
The original "Vanishing Point" was a great flick. Subtle motives, characters that seemed real and spontaneous.The remake was terrible. Preachy, overtly obvious; it missed the point as to why the original was a classic. The black Charger was cool, but even that couldn't rescue this flick. Why stick with a white Challenger? I didn't think that was the best choice back in '71. Some parts of the film were unintentionally hilarious. Like when Vigo was standing on a cliff overlooking the canyon after his "Dream Quest". His Indian pal was standing next to him. Vigo was only wearing his white briefs. I'm sorry - it just looked silly - him surveying the vista in his Fruit of the Looms. Another scene was at the end - after the explosive crash into the bulldosers - the announcer said that the impact was clocked at 180 mph. Then he mentions that the cops said his remains weren't found because he vaporized, but some people believe he bailed out and was hidden by friends in the crowd. Then it shows him rolling out of the car at 180 mph! First of all, you couldn't open the car door at 180 mph. Secondly, the car would not continue to travel in a straight line for 100 yds. with nobody to steer it. It would promptly roll over about 30 times. Thirdly, if you hit the pavement at 180 mph, you would wind up in various squishy pieces. No matter, we see him at the end standing with his daughter. All in all, a movie that would insult anyone's intelligence. | 0neg
|
Pictures that usually glorify a hero have meaning. As an example, Bonnie and Clyde glorified the dynamic bank robbers and you actually felt sympathy for them despite their evil deeds. Why? They were two people caught up in the depression when people were desperate to survive.<br /><br />This film has absolutely no substance. The Viggo Mortensen character soon emerges as a folk hero. Why? He speeds along an Idaho highway on the way to the hospital where his stricken wife has been taking. No one bothers to understand why he is trying to flee everyone. Even worse, when the realization becomes apparent that he is not a red-neck terrorist, no one in government wants to help him as they try to save their rear ends.<br /><br />Jason Priestley co-stars as a radio emcee who builds upon the story in support of our hero.<br /><br />The ending is absolutely unbelievable. | 0neg
|
Some might say something like "Baby Geniuses" with its giant robot infants or "Dumbo" with its psychedelic drug-addled nightmare sequence would win the award for the most disturbing movie ever made for children. You might say that too, but you'd be wrong. Lo and behold, for I bring to you: Santa Claus, the most helplessly messed up family film since ... well, ever. <br /><br />From the opening scenes showing children from different parts of the world singing their insipid theme songs (seriously, this segment is nearly 20 freakin' minutes long and has nothing to do with the plot!) to the thrilling conclusion in which Merlin pops up from outta nowhere and saves the day (don't mind him, he's from Barcelona), this is childhood trauma at its finest. And no matter how hard I try, no matter how many different therapists I visit, I just... can't... get... those... reindeer's...laughter...out... of... my ... head! <br /><br />Avoid this mind-bending piece of trash like you'd avoid a sex-starved whale during mating season. Still, if flaming gay demons with a serious case of the overacting flu are something for you, I guess you should give it a try. But really, this movie isn't worth your time and mental health. | 0neg
|
This film is awful. Give me the dentist anytime! Can you believe that one of the main TV stations here in Arabia had this as their Christmas film! I can only assume they expected to entertain the crowds with Dudley Moore rather than this. The last time I looked at my hot water bottle it had more acting, better plot, more drama and a lot more interest than this waste of celluloid. Don't even watch it if you're drunk! | 0neg
|
This has to be creepiest, most twisted holiday film that I've ever clapped eyes on, and that's saying something. I know that the Mexican people have some odd ideas about religion, mixing up ancient Aztec beliefs with traditional Christian theology. But their Day of the Dead isn't half as scary as their take on Santa Claus.<br /><br />So..Santa isn't some jolly, fat red-suited alcoholic(take a look at those rosy cheeks sometime!). Rather, he's a skinny sociopathic pedophile living in Heaven(or the heavens, whichever), with a bunch of kids who work harder than the one's in Kathy Lee Gifford's sweat shops. They sing oh-so-cute traditional songs of their homelands while wearing clothing so stereotypical that i was surprised there wasn't a little African-American boy in black face singing 'Mammy'. This Santa is a Peeping Tom pervert who watches and listens to everything that everybody does from his 'eye in the sky'. This is so he can tell who's been naughty or nice(with an emphasis on those who are naughty, I'd bet).<br /><br />There's no Mrs. Claus, no elves(what does he need elves for when he's got child labor?) and the reindeer are mechanical wind-up toys! This floating freak show hovers on a cloud, presumably held up by its silver lining.<br /><br />Santa's nemesis is...the Devil?! What is this, Santa our Lord and Savior? Weird. Anyhoo, Satan sends one of his minions, a mincing, prancing devil named Pitch, to try to screw up Christmas. Let me get this straight-the forces of purest evil are trying to ruin a completely commercial and greed driven holiday? Seems kind of redundant, doesn't it?<br /><br />Pitch is totally ineffectual. He tries to talk some children into being bad, but doesn't have much luck. I was strongly struck by the storyline of the saintly little girl Lupe, who's family is very poor. All that she wants is a doll for Christmas, but he parents can't afford to buy her one(they spent all of their money on the cardboard that they built their house out of). So Pitch tries to encourage her to steal a doll. In reality, that's the only way that a girl that poor would ever get a doll, because being saintly and praying to God and holy Santa doesn't really work. But Lupe resists temptation and tells Pitch to get thee behind her, and so is rewarded by being given a doll so creepy looking that you just know that it's Chucky's sister.<br /><br />Along the way Pitch manages to get Santa stuck in a tree(uh-huh) from whence he's rescued by Merlin! Merlin? You have got to be kidding me! Since when do mythical Druidic figures appear in Christmas tales, or have anything to do with a Christian religion? And doesn't God disapprove of magic? They'd have been burning Merlin at the stake a few hundred years ago, not asking him to come to the rescue of one of God's Aspects(or that's what I assume Santa must be, to be going up against Satan). This movie is one long HUH? from start to finish, and it'll make you wonder if that eggnog you drank wasn't spiked or something. Probably it was, since this movie is like one long giant DT. | 0neg
|
All right I recently got a chance to rent this and watch Santa Claus conquers the martains. Although the children were much more sadistic in SCCTM, I would have to say that Santa Claus was a much worse movie. As a spanish assignment in Spanish 5 we all had to watch it. I'll tell you, usually when we watch a movie we are all just talking and eating food, but not for this movie. Everyone just kept there jaw open wondering what the evil Mr. Pitch was going to do next. Would Merlin help Santa Claus!?! or would his robot reindeer come and save the day? I would suggest renting it because it is the biggest piece of rubbish I have ever seen and I love it for that. :D | 0neg
|
When I was kid back in the 1970s a local theatre had Children's Matinees every Saturday and Sunday afternoon (anybody remember those?). They showed this thing one year around Christmas time. Me and some friends went to see it. I expected a cool Santa Claus movie. What I got was a terribly dubbed (you can tell) and truly creepy movie.<br /><br />Something about Santa Claus and Merlin the Magician (don't ask me what those two are doing in the same movie) fighting Satan (some joker in a silly devil costume complete with horns!). The images had me cringing in my seat. I always found Santa spooky to begin with so that didn't help. The guy in the Satan suit didn't help. But what REALLY horrified me were the wooden rein deers that pulled Santa's sled. When he wound them up and the creepy sound they made and the movements--I remember having nightmares about those things! All these years later I still remember walking out of that theatre more than a little disturbed by what I saw. My friends were sort of frightened by it too. I just saw an ad for it on TV and ALL those nightmares came roaring back. This is a creepy, disturbing little Christmas film that will probably scare the pants off any little kid who sees it. Avoid this one--unless you really want to punish your kids. This gets a 1. | 0neg
|
While "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians" is usually cited as one of the worse films ever made, this Mexican-made film from 1959 is so bad it makes "SCCM" look like "It's a Wonderful Life." You have to wonder what the people who made this film were thinking; perhaps they meant it as a third-world allegory about capitalist greed and conspicuous consumption. Nah . . . They just weren't very good. The same production company made an even more disturbing version of "Little Red Riding Hood" in which the wolf's obsession with our heroine has unmistakable hints of pedophilia. (Perhaps this was the inspiration for "Freeway.") Back to "Santa Claus": instead of the North Pole, Jolly Old Saint Nicholas resides in a satellite in geosynchronous earth orbit (shades of "MST3K"); instead of elves his toys are made by children chosen from around the world; and he had sophisticated spy equipment to check just which kids are naughty and nice. The result is like an Orwellian outer space sweat shop. It's enough to turn you off Christmas forever. This and other low-rent Mexican children's' films were dubbed in English and widely distributed in the U.S. in the early 1960s; no wonder the sixties became such a turbulent period in American history. The baby boomers who were forced to endure these "family" films as children would be all too eager to turn revolutionary. | 0neg
|
Before I'd seen this, I had seen some pretty bad Christmas films. But once I saw this, "Jingle All the Way" looked better than "The Godfather". "Santa Claus" is a jolly film about Santa helping out some kids, but it almost feels demonic watching it. Santa's jolly ho-ho-ho is replaces by an evil, devilish laugh that I'm sure has turned many kids off of Christmas. The plot of this massacre is very strange, which fits along with all of the performances and dialog. Santa lives high above Earth in the North Pole where he, and kids from all around the world get ready for Christmas. But Santa has an enemy named Pitch, or Satan. Pitch tries to ruin Santa's Christmas by making three boys naughty, and by creating diversions, like moving the chimney and making the doorknob hot. When Pitch causes Santa to be attacked by a dog, it's up to Santa's helper Pedro and Merlin the wizard to get Santa out of this pickle. <br /><br />Everything about this film, along with being downright bad, is so bizarre. Satan dances a lot and he actually seems much more merry than Santa. Santa talks about delivering presents to all the boys and girls, yet he seems to only deliver to 5 houses of kids in Mexico. The reindeer are wind up toys, and when the reindeer laughs, I'm amazed it doesn't bring tears to kid's eyes...it's frightening. Everything is terrible. The first 10 minutes are simply Santa playing the organ while kids sing to it. Probably one of the strangest scenes is Santa shooting Pitch in the butt with a mini-cannon and uproariously laughing about it while Pitch dances around in pain. I think parents are better off telling their little kids about where babies come from, than showing them this. The only positive is it will have you laughing hysterically if you can appreciate bad cinema.<br /><br />My rating: BOMB/****. 85 mins. | 0neg
|
Its hard to make heads or tails of this film. Unless you're well oiled and in the mood to mock, don't view Santa Claus. It mixes Santa, Satan, Merlin, and moralizing in a most unappetizing way. It certainly is not for fretful children. | 0neg
|
The NSA, CIA, FBI, FSB and all other snoop agency in the world should watch this movie to gain information as to how to spy on people. (as MST3k Commentary states it..."Sanata has the dirt on every! Santa's Tentacles reach far and wide! There is no hiding from the Klaus Organization")<br /><br />From telescopes that can spy over millions of miles to ears that can hear everything. Its amazing that the CIA doesn't have Santa on the payroll. <br /><br />Satan's dance routine is hilarious. Pitch...he is so useless.<br /><br />The cheese factor in of this movie is tremendous. Very low budget but so fun to watch. I recommend watching the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 version for even more laughs.<br /><br />You even get a laugh at the missfortune of the good kids.<br /><br />I give this a 1 for production quality and a 10 for pure cheese and fun factor. | 0neg
|
Wow. Who ever said that Edward D. Wood Jr. never influenced anybody? This steaming pile of donkey excrement is a perfect case in point; it makes "The Violent Years" look like "Casablanca"! "Santa Claus" also makes Keith Richards' worst flashbacks look like my first nocturnal emission. I've had nightmares, you know, waking up and sweating bullets, that will never come close to the visceral terror that Santa Claus unearthed from the seemingly pure soil of my very being. However, I can think of some parties where this film might actually go over well. Also, if you're looking for the perfect example of a Santa-Satan dichotomy on VHS tape, look no further. Don't check out this movie, as I've been notified the MST3K version is now available. Move over Satan, here's "Santa Claus". | 0neg
|
This Santa movie starts off strange and I think Santa might be a pedo. Instead of the usual elf toy makers, this Santa has apparently kidnapped kids from all across the globe and makes them sing a bit like characters from "It's a Small World"! I guess there are no child labor laws on the weird astral plane on which he lives (it's apparently NOT the North Pole and not on Earth)!! None of these kids seem very happy and I kept wanting to see commandos break in and rescue the tykes, though I guess for some of the third world kids, these working conditions were perhaps an improvement over local sweatshops. I sure hope that all they do is sing and make toys.<br /><br />Then, the scene abruptly changes to Hell where lots and lots of demons dance about like they are in a Busby Berkeley musical. This fun in put to a stop by Satan who orders one of them, Pitch, to go to Earth to ruin Christmas!! Personally, I thought this movie already did that! The Devil and his imps are actually kind of cute--like Hot Stuff from the Harvey Comics but with cool evil goatees! Or, if you are Puerto Rican, like a vejigante mask with a goatee! <br /><br />Somehow a poverty-stricken Mexican kid named Lupita, a group of jerky kids who want to mug Santa and some rich kid are key battlegrounds for the Devil and Santa!! So, if the Prince of Darkness (not Donald Trump, it's the OTHER Prince of Darkness) can somehow make her steal and be bad, he'll 'win'--what, we don't really know! In fact, as they root her on, you get the impression that the film makers intend Santa to be Jesus--as he has all these great powers AND fights the Devil over kids' souls! Later, Santa meets with his friend, Merlin. He asks him to make him a special powder that makes people dream nice dreams. Considering how much Santa laughs in the film (like a demented chipmunk), I assume he must use this drug A LOT! He immediately goes to see a blacksmith who makes him a magic key that opens ALL doors. Considering he keeps kids as his personal 'assistants', this magic key thing worries me immensely! During Santa's Christmas Eve ride, you see Lupita behave like a little angel--one problem down. Santa then takes time out now to take care of the rich kid whose parents are selfish jerks. He gives them some sort of crazy cocktail which magically solves their problems--two problems solved. This is a rare case where alcohol/drugs HELP kids and solves problems! And as for the little muggers, he gives them coal! Frustrated with his losses to Santa, Pitch then tries to steal the sleigh (which is pulled by creepy animatronic deer). When this fails, he destroys Santa's stash of 'magic powder'! As a result, Santa can't become invisible to avoid dogs and gets treed. Uh, oh...how can Santa take a detour to the Betty Ford Clinic if he's stuck up a tree?! Will St. Nick get down from the tree and get the monkey off his back or will the devils win? If you care, tune in and see. However, be warned that the film is bat-crap crazy! <br /><br />Technically speaking, the film is yecchy. While it is in color, it's really gaudy. The music is mostly done on an organ--which, along with bad singing from the kids, produces perhaps the worst soundtrack I've heard in recent memory. And the story is just incomprehensible and very, very, very creepy. Devils and a Santa that kidnaps kids is just plain creep-tastic. It's a film you should NEVER show to kids but makes a great film to watch with friends so you can laugh at it from start to finish! | 0neg
|
This was another obscure Christmas-related title, a low-budget Mexican production from exploitation film-maker Cardona (NIGHT OF THE BLOODY APES [1969], TINTORERA! [1977]), which like many a genre effort from this country was acquired for release in the U.S. by K. Gordon Murray. Judging by those two efforts already mentioned, Cardona was no visionary and, this one having already received its share of flak over here, is certainly no better! The film, in fact, is quite redolent of the weirdness which characterized Mexican horror outings from the era, but given an added dimension by virtue of the garish color (which, in view of the prominence of reds apart from St. Nick himself, the Devil plays a major role in the proceedings throughout, was essential). Anyway, in a nutshell, the plot involves Satan's efforts to stall Santa Claus' Christmas Eve rendezvous with the Earth's children; there is, however, plenty more wackiness along the way: to begin with, our portly, white-bearded and chronically merry man-in-red lives in a celestial palace who, apart from accompanying toy-maker kids from all over the world on his piano as they sing (laboriously for the whole first reel!) in their native tongue, visits Merlin the famed magician at King Arthur's court, here bafflingly but amusingly prone to child-like hopping and mumbling gibberish! once every year to acquire potions which would bring somnolence to the young and render himself invisible (by the way, the Wizard's anachronistic presence here is no less unlikely than his being a cohort of Dr. Frankenstein in SON OF Dracula [1974]!!); incidentally, by this time, he always seems to have gained some excess weight
so Santa has to work out in order to be able to fit into each proverbial chimney! The Devil's antics (enthusiastically rubbing his hands together at every turn and generally hamming it up) to hold up St. Nick's delivery program, then, is perfectly puerile: indeed, their tit-for-tat shenanigans resemble an old Laurel & Hardy routine more than anything! To pad out the running-time, we focus on three sets of children: one, the lonely son of a rich couple who wants nothing more for Christmas than their company (projected as a wish-fulfillment fantasy where the boy finds his parents wrapped in extra-large packages!), a girl from a poor family who yearns to own a doll of her own (the horned one first tempts her to steal one, then invades the little one's dreams to no avail) and a trio of brats who, egged on once again by Satan, think of nothing but causing mischief and eventually fall out amongst themselves. There is definitely imagination at work here, but it is applied with little rhyme or reason, while the overall juvenile approach keeps entertainment (unless one counts the film as a guilty pleasure) well at bay! | 0neg
|
Just when I thought I would finish a whole year without giving a single movie a "Bomb" rating, a friend brought this notorious turd to my house last night. I feared the worst knowing its reputation, and it was as God-awful as I'd anticipated. This is a Mexican-made mess, dubbed into English, and produced by K. Gordon Murray. It's got terrible sets and effects, and features a rather frightening Santa who doesn't operate at the North Pole, but instead from a cloud in outer space, and who doesn't have little elves helping him make his toys but rather all different groups of children from practically every country there is. The opening sequence, where St. Nick chuckles heartily as he observes monitors showing all these kiddies working hard while singing terrible holiday songs in a variety of languages, seems to go on forever, and with no story. Obviously, THIS Santa Claus doesn't observe the child labor laws!<br /><br />Eventually we get some nasty and slinky red-suited apprentice of the devil himself traveling from hell to Earth, just to make little kids naughty and turn Santa's Christmas Eve rounds into a nightmare. Watching this movie is a trippy and twisted experience, and it's bound to frighten little children and turn them off Santa Claus and the holidays forever. Oddly, the name of Jesus Christ is mentioned often in this Christmas film, which somehow makes it all the creepier in the context of all the bizarre things that are going on. This easily makes my personal list of the "Worst Movie I've Ever Seen", but I'm sure that's nothing unique. | 0neg
|
Why such a generic title? Santa Claus??? So bland and unpredictable. Movies before that tried to cash in on the holiday spirit, most notably 'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians', at least was entertaining to watch because of the campiness to it, and all the stock footage being used... for some reason, that seemed happy to me. But this movie just screws Christmas in the butt, and screws the joy of all the kids. Santa lives in space? His enemy is a devil named Pitch? Santa gets help from Merlin the Magician? How random is this!? Well, since it was made in Mexico then some of you might understand the way of how the film was made. I had to admit some of the effects were just wacky for the time. It was a all-out cluster of madness! Though, despite all the troubles with the movie, it still feels like a Christmas movie. Good conquers evil, and Christmas still plays a part of our hearts of every good girl or boy in the world, or possibly universe, thanks to Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.. apparently. So, I think you should give it a try, even if it is one of the worst holiday movies of all time... though it should put a smile on your face any day. | 0neg
|
This is perhaps the creepiest display of Santa Claus ever committed to any medium, whether it be a book, a picture, or a movie. Santa looks like a perv looking down on the children and the twisted story of bringing Merlin in to help him defeat one of Satan's minions, Pitch, doesn't make things any better. It's laughable to say the least, with bad effects, even for 1959 standards. If a kid were to watch this movie, he'd have nightmares and never want Santa to visit. They'd be scarred for life. Imagine the kid's in "A Christmas Story" when they start screaming after being put on Santa's lap. That's how this would turn out if kid's see this movie. | 0neg
|
I saw this film numerous times in the late 60's/early 70's whenever it reared it's head like a reindeer with rabies every November-December as a Saturday matinée kiddie show.It was always stiff competition for THE CHRSTMAS THAT ALMOST WASN'T (oops-can I SAY "Christmas"?), perhaps the greatest,most iconic Christmas-season film of all time.But that's another review.<br /><br />At the time,I marveled that the on-screen tint of SANTA CLAUS was almost "pink and white", so much had the color of the sprocket-torn prints changed color.<br /><br />The film is kinda creepy! I thought so then--and still do, actually. I was highly entertained then, as I still am! It's amusing in a "retarted-elf" sort of way. By the way,the image quality looks much better on the DVD I have now than it did in the theater, circa 1969-74.<br /><br />If you are expecting maybe "the lost RANKIN-BASS Christmas special-forget it! If you want FELLINI DOES Christmas--read on...<br /><br />By nature, the dubbing on these foreign films (the original version here was in Spanish)always makes them seem "surreal". This adds to the films inherent oddness. It is also pretty scary in that a "mishevious demon" (as described in the original US trailer) spends the entire film trying to turn decent kids "evil". One particularly nightmarish scene has a young "latch-key" boy wishing he had parents for Christmas-suddenly the "port-a-family" emerges out of giant "Christmas presents-of-the-mind" until he realizes he's just daydreaming! See this,Christmas lovers--and if you're a stoner, save your stash--this film will make you think you're hallucinating...without drugs! | 0neg
|
I first saw this movie when I was about 10 years old. My mom bought it at our local Kmart because it was on sale for $5 on VHS. She thought that it would be a nice Christmas movie for me and my brothers to watch. This movie, however, scared the hell out of me. You may be asking yourself, how could a movie about Santa Clause scare anyone? The plot of the movie revolves around Satan sending one his minions, Pitch, to earth in an attempt to kill Santa and ruin Christmas. That's right, Satan sends a demon up from hell to kill Santa Clause. Pitch stalks Santa throughout Christmas eve in an attempt to trap him on earth when the sun rises on Christmas day, for if Santa doesn't make it back to his home in space, he turns to powder. Don't get me wrong, the movie is funny and fairly entertaining, however, the image of demons and devils dancing in the depths of hell (which occurs at the beginning of the movie) is just downright creepy. | 0neg
|
Believe it or don't, i have my very own DVD copy of this "movie" which i bought at Walgreens for a great big whole dollar. I'm still not sure if it was a dollar well spent or a dollar foolishly wasted.<br /><br />Pretty amazing set designs and costumes. Apparently much thought and effort went into their making. The set designs are very Mexican in stylization. I liked them a lot. And Santa is impressive. One of the more impressive Santas in moviedom.<br /><br />I'm guessing the original intent and purpose of this movie was to be something uplifting and cheerful for a kids audience. But, somehow, it comes across quite deranged. In fact, i'm left stunned at how deranged it is.<br /><br />Maybe it's the English dubbing that makes it seems so deranged and bizarre. One of the reasons i prefer to experience movies in the original language they were made and the use of English subtitles as dubbing often gives an unintended strangeness. The kid voices were at least dubbed with actual kid voices as opposed to women pretending to be kids which tends to sound very, very weird.<br /><br />Did you know that demons in hell spend their free time dancing around doing ballet in their longjohns? You didn't? Neither did i until i watched this movie. One learns something new everyday.<br /><br />Is this movie actually worth watching? Now, that's a tossup. I can't in good conscience recommend it to anyone as it's quite disturbing in its own bizarre way. Yet, its unintentional bizarreness is what makes it worth watching. You decide what you're going to do. I dunno... for myself, it made me feel uncomfortable seeing demons constantly doing cutesy ballet moves. Now, that's just wrong... | 0neg
|
This is kind of a weird movie, given that Santa Claus lives on a cloud in outer space and fights against Satan and his minions...but it's still kinda fun.<br /><br />It has some genuine laughs...whether all of them were intentional is certainly debatable, though. This movie is not good, but I can say I really enjoyed watching it.<br /><br />I would recommend this movie over "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians", "Santa Claus" with Dudley Moore and John Lithgow, or "The Santa Clause" with Tim Allen. | 0neg
|
This movie is supposed to be a "lighthearted" tale about Santa Claus and his "magical and mystical" wonders. But instead it comes off as being downright creepy. Two things in this movie that stand out in my mind as horrifying are 1) the way Santa looks.- Have you ever seen a more horrible looking Santa Claus? and 2) the "evil rep. of Satan" Pitch's just plain odd dances are just sickening to watch. Only watch this movie if it happens to be the MSTed version or if you like a very good laugh. I can't believe this is a children's movie. | 0neg
|
I'm allowed to write 1000 words about this film, but one word could suffice: bizarre. Hubby and I didn't laugh so much as gawk at this truly dreadful movie. We kept looking at each other with our best "What the...?" expressions. There is no way to adequately describe this movie. Killer tomatoes were funny, but this is just sick. What kind of mind produces images like these and then puts them on film for others to see? What kind of mind includes innocent children in this weird, weird movie and then packages it as if it is appropriate for children? Parents, whatever you do, if your child still believes in Santa, don't let him/her see this movie. Preteens can watch it -- probably with "What the...?" expressions on their faces. If you decide to inflict this movie on others, you might want to spike their eggnog.<br /><br />Quite possibly the worst film ever made. | 0neg
|
Yes I have rated this film as one star awful. Yet, it will be in my rotation of Christmas movies henceforth. This truly is so bad it's good. This is another K.Gordon Murray production (read: buys a really cheap/bad Mexican movie, spends zero money getting it dubbed into English and releases it at kiddie matinées in the mid 1960's.) It's a shame I stumbled on this so late in life as I'm sure some "mood enhancers" would make this an even better experience. I'm not going to rehash what so many of the other reviewers have already said, a Christmas movie with Merlin, the Devil, mechanical wind-up reindeer and some of the most pathetic child actors I have ever seen bar none. I plan on running this over the holidays back to back with Kelsey Grammar's "A Christmas Carol". Truly a holiday experience made in Hell. Now if I can only find "To All A Goodnight (aka Slayride)" on DVD I'll have a triple feature that can't be beat. You have to see this movie. It moves so slowly that I defy you not to touch the fast forward button-especially on the two dance routines! This thing reeks like an expensive bleu cheese-guess you have to get past the stink to enjoy the experience. Feliz Navidad amigos! | 0neg
|
With title like this you know you get pretty much lot of junk. Acting bad. Script bad. Director bad. Grammar bad.<br /><br />Movie make lot of noise that really not music and lot of people yell. Movie make bad racial stereotype. Why come every movie with black hero have drug addict? Why come hero always have to dance to be success? Why come famous rapper always have to be in dance movie? Why come letter "s" can't be in title?<br /><br />Hollywood need to stop dumb down audience and make movie that have people with brain who know how speak proper English.<br /><br />Do self favor and not go see. | 0neg
|
I can always tell when something is going to be a hit. I see it or hear it, and get a good feeling. I did not get a good feeling watching the preview. I was not at all enthusiastic about this film, and I am not at all surprised that it is rated here as one of the worst 100 films. I was in fact proved right.<br /><br />The first thing that threw me off was the title. Not that I have a problem with ebonics(I am black by the way), but for a movie they could have used a better title, and for this time use a title that doesn't have bad grammar. I heard the dialog, saw the acting and all I could do was make faces.<br /><br />I also think that the dance movie theme is being overdone. At least "You Got Served" was better than this in my opinion. Even the soundtrack didn't thrill me. | 0neg
|
"How She Moves" springs to life only when its high-energy, talented cast members are kicking up their heels and strutting their stuff for the camera. Otherwise, this stale strive-suffer-and-succeed story is low on energy, low on originality, and low on anything that might make the movie stand out from the dozens of other, likeminded films that have come before it.<br /><br />Rutina Wesley has modest appeal as the academically gifted inner-city youngster who finds that the best way to raise her private school tuition money is by entering step-dance competitions, but both she and her fellow actors are poorly served by uninspired screen writing and undistinguished direction. As noted earlier, the movie achieves some spark when the performers are up on stage dancing, but such moments are far too few and sadly fleeting. | 0neg
|
Its one of those stereotypical mtv generation dance movies, and I do not see where all this 'its not that bad' rubbish is coming from. The acting is terrible, it follows exactly the same storyline as all the other 'dancing' movies out there. Its terrible! The name should scream don't watch. 'How she move.' Since when can movie titles ignore grammar? At least some dance movies had half decent dance scenes, these ones don't even deserve a watch. I give it a 1 out of 10, just because there is no zero. I seriously implore anyone with an IQ of over 60 not to watch this, and not to waste your money. The 1.6/10 should tell it all. This movie should not have even be made. | 0neg
|
This movie was absolutely ghastly! I cannot fathom how this movie made it to production. Nothing against the cast of the movie, of course, this is all the fault of the writing team. You take the old average plot - let's dance our way out of being poor and destitute - or STEP in this case. But this one lacks any semblance of a true plot - or at least one that anyone would care about. With Canadian speaking actors in what is supposed to be an American setting - this film falls very flat. On a positive note, the directing was pretty good and cinematography was pretty decent as well. Looks like the production budget was very generous as well. My only request is that this team leave the writing alone and go find actual screenwriters to help them bring words alive on film. Net result - How she move is How she sucks. | 0neg
|
We've been served - a terrible film.<br /><br />Okay, I'll admit that since I'm white and have had no practical experience in the "competitive world of step-dancing," I might not exactly be an authority on this type of film. On the other hand, I do know a bad motion picture when I see it.<br /><br />And, boy, have I just seen it.<br /><br />Filmed in Low-Budget-Vision and directed by Ian Iqubal Rashid, ("A Touch of Pink"), "How She Move" tells the tale of how important it is to follow one's dreams - even if those dreams include bopping around to loud, irritating hip-hop music and speaking dialogue the average person would not understand if he or she had an international translator.<br /><br />I'll try to give a small synopsis of the "plot." First of all there are two actors that look like LL Cool J who work in an auto shop in Toronto (the Mecca of racial diversity), but still have time to practice dancing for eight hours a day. <br /><br />There are a few other guys in this "crew," including a token white dude and a guy that looks like Denzel Washington in "Malcolm X." There are also two women in the movie - one resembles Serena Williams and the other looks like Geraldine from the old "Flip Wilson Show." One of these ladies was kicked out of a private college because her parents spent all of her tuition on a drug-addicted sibling. The other girl, a member of Salt N Pepa, no doubt, is just plain no good.<br /><br />There's another guy who looks like Eddie Murphy's Buckwheat, while still another actor who's a Huggy Bear knock-off. These guys are rival step dancers. Evidently, this activity is very hard-core in the 'hood, and they are all practicing for the big "Step Monster" jam in Detroit.<br /><br />Since I was unable to understand 90 percent of the dialogue (perhaps some subtitles would have been useful, as in a Bergman film or that one music video by Snow), it's hard to explain what happens, other than there's a lot of arguing, the Serena Williams girl (who never smiles, by the way) becomes a freelance stepper (moving from group to group), there's some step-dancing and a lot of irritating hip-hop music.<br /><br />It's a typical rags-to-riches story; sort of like "Rocky" with a really bad soundtrack, "Rudy" with annoying rap music in the background, "Cry Freedom" without the laughs. <br /><br />But why does a film - which could have made a big impact on black audiences - have to contain drug addiction, bad parents and a title that sounds like a first-grader saying the phrase, "How she moves"?<br /><br />I was "moved" by this movie, however. Moved to leave the theater as quickly as possible. | 0neg
|
This movie has a slew of great adult stars but fails to get you interested in a way an adult film should. Among all the stars you couldn't get your kicks from any of the scenes. The movie is shot in a dream like middle age set which is embarrassingly cheesy. The acting is worse than Keanu Reeves, the sex scenes are as exciting as listening to your neighbor talk about their kid in college, and the dialogue is the worse I have seen in a movie. The plot also was worse by ten fold. I'd stick to the amateur route. The audio commentary was useless since it's a skin flick but even then that was bad too. Unless your a diehard Jenna Jameson fan there is little here. 4/10 | 0neg
|
I am a VERY big fan of Jenna Jameson, but this movie is horrible. At the time Jenna Jameson was married to Brad Armstrong and he was the director of this film and Jenna was the hottest porn star ever. So, of course, Brad tried to make as much money as he could off her by making this big budget porn film. Now I know why they don't make big budget porn movies anymore. In a fantasy world, porn stars could act, but this is the real world and they can't act. That's why there porn stars, if a women as beautiful as Jenna could act, then she would have tried to go into mainstream movies instead of porn. Just because your beautiful doesn't make you a movie star. A fine example of this is Traci Lords, when she was a teen thru her 20's she was one of the most beautiful, sexy women on earth. She made her move into low budget mainstream films and couldn't act. Where is she now? I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 rating just because Jenna is so hot, but there are better movies she has made then "Dream Quest". Come on Jenna, we don't want to hear you talk, as much as we want to see you have sex. Also, you Jenna, would have a lot more fans and more money in your bank account if you would have done anal on film. | 0neg
|
Someone told me that this was one of the best adult movies to date. I have since discredited everything told to me by this individual after seeing this movie. It's just terrible. Without going into lengthy descriptions of the various scenes, take my word for it, the sex scenes are uninteresting at best. Jenna in normal street clothes in the beginning was the highlight of the film (she does look good) but it's all downhill from there. | 0neg
|
Tony Scott destroys anything that may have been interesting in Richard Kelly's clichéd, patchy, overwrought screenplay. Domino Harvey (Kiera Knightley) was a model who dropped out and became a bounty hunter. This is her story... "sort of".<br /><br />The problem with this rubbish is that there isn't much of a story at all and Scott's extreme graphic stylization of every shot acts as a distancing mechanism that makes us indifferent to everything in Harvey's chaotic life.<br /><br />You just don't care about Harvey. Knightley plays her as an obnoxious, cynical brat who has done nothing to warrant our respect. She punches people she doesn't like and sheds her clothes and inhibitions when the situation calls for it, but she isn't the least bit real and Knightly isn't the least bit convincing, either.<br /><br />The film is boring. It's loud, too, and shackled with one of the most annoying source music scores I've heard in a long time. The final twenty minutes are a poor re-run of Scott's "True Romance" climax with Domino's gang going to meet two sets of feuding bad guys who are -- surprise! surprise! -- destined to shoot it out with each other at the top of a Las Vegas casino.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this potentially exciting conflagration is totally botched by Scott and becomes a confusing, pretentious, pointless exercise in celluloid masturbation. This is not an artistically brave or experimental piece; it is a failure on every level because it gives us no entry point to the lives and dilemmas of its characters.<br /><br />Mickey Roarke looks good as a grizzled bounty hunter, but he disappears into the background as the "narrative" progresses. Chris Walken turns in another embarrassing cameo and Dabney Coleman, always solid, is underutilized.<br /><br />Don't be fooled by this film's multi-layered, gimmick-ridden surface. It is still a turd no matter how hard you polish it. | 0neg
|
Repetitive music, annoying narration, terrible cinematography effects. Half of the plot seemed centered around shock value and the other half seemed to be focused on appeasing the type of crowd that would nag at people to start a fight.<br /><br />One of the best scenes was in the "deleted scenes" section, the one where she's in the principle's office with her mom. I don't understand why they'd cut that. The movie seemed desperate to make a point about anything it could and Domino talking about sororities would have been a highlight of the movie.<br /><br />Ridiculous camera work is reminiscent of MTV, and completely not needed or helpful to a movie. Speeding the film up just to jump past a lot of things and rotating the camera around something repeatedly got old the first time it was used. It's like the directors are wanting to use up all this extra footage they didn't want to throw away.<br /><br />Another movie with Jerry Springer in it? That should've told me not to watch it from the preview.<br /><br />A popular movie for the "in" crowd. | 0neg
|
From the first moment, this "thing" is just an awful sequence of extremely short cuts of blurry camera work. While the overall plot has every potential for a thriller, the story is so badly told that I'm unable to buy it. From the middle of the film, the actions of characters don't make sense to me. Stop reading now to avoid SPOILERS.<br /><br />For instance, Ed's idea to have Edna make coffee for them after having shot off her son's arm is way below his alleged experience; it's just an extremely stupid idea. Domino not questioning the fragmentary orders she receives from Claremont Williams over a breaking-up phone connection just eludes me; shouldn't she be long suspicious that Williams is turning them in? Those FBI agents seem out of their minds showing up with just one single helicopter to something they have every reason to consider a capital mafia shoot-out. Besides, what they do by withholding and leaking information towards Cigliutti is pretty much incitement to murder; it seems to me like farewell to justice if that's they way the FBI does investigations. In reality, they'd have a case messed up beyond repair if they acted like this. We get to see a car accident which normally would have at least seriously injured if not killed most of the passengers but miraculously leaves all of them with just a few bruises. Quite the contrary, the accident is immediately followed by Domino making love to Choco, which is from Domino's viewpoint in no way founded by previous events but just by being drugged to the eyeballs.<br /><br />The whole sequence of scenes starting from the phone call of Claremont Williams appears to me just as want-to-be dramatic razzle-dazzle. This combined with the awful, uneasy camera work just makes a piece I hesitate to call a movie. I'm sorry for the wasted effort of the main actors, whose talent is out of question. | 0neg
|
My flatmate rented out this film the other night, so we watched it together.<br /><br />The first impression is actually a positive one, because the whole movie is shot in this colorful, grainy, post-MTV texture. Fast sequences, cool angles, sweeping camera moves - for the moment there you feel like you about to watch another "Snatch", for the moment....<br /><br />When the plot actually starts unfolding, one starts to feel as if one over-dosed amphetamine. things just don't make sense anymore. i would hate to spoil the fun of watching it by giving out certain scenes, but then again, the film is so bad that you are actually better off NOT watching it.<br /><br />First you think it is a crime story recounted in a conversation between Keira Knightley and Lucy Liu. WRONG. This conversation provides no coherent narrative whatsoever. Rather on the contrary, Domino's lesbian come on on Lucy Liu's character during the second part of the movie just throws the audience into further confusion.<br /><br />Then i thought that maybe it is a movie about a girl from affluent but dysfunctional background who grew to be a tough bounty hunter. In any case, that is the message conveyed by the opening scenes. But after that the question of Domino's character is entirely lost to the criminal plot. So in short, NO this is NOT a movie about Domino's character.<br /><br />Then i thought, it's probably a story of one robbery. A pretty bloody robbery. 10 millions went missing, bounty hunters are chasing around suspected robbers, mafia kids are executed, hands are removed, Domino tries to crack why this time they get no bounty certificates, etc. But soon this impression is dispelled by another U-turn of the plot.<br /><br />This time we are confronted with a sad story of an obese Afro-American woman, who fakes driver's licenses at the local MVD and at the age of 28 happens to be a youngest grandmother. Lateesha stars on Jerry Springer show, tries to publicize some new, wacky racial theory, and at the same time struggles to find money for her sick granddaughter.<br /><br />What does this have to do with the main plot? URgh, well, nobody knows. Except that director had to explain the audiences where will bounty hunters put their collectors' fee of 300,000.<br /><br />Then at some point you start to think: "Oh, it is about our society and the way media distorts things". There is reality TV crew driving around with the bounty hunters and doing some violent footage. The bounty hunters are also stuck with a bunch of Hollywood actors, who just whine all the time about having their noses broken and themselves dragged around too many crime scenes. But NO, this is not a movie about media, they just appear sporadically throughout the movie.<br /><br />Plus there are numerous other sub-plots: the crazy Afghani guy bent on liberating Afghanistan, the love story between Domino and Chocco, the mescaline episode, the FBI surveillance operation...<br /><br />Can all of the things mentioned above be packed into 2 hrs movie? Judge for yourself, but my conclusion is clear - it is a veritable mess! | 0neg
|
If it smells like garbage and if it looks like garbage, it must be garbage. This is by far one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my entire life. Tony Scott's poor directing style puts shame to an already uninteresting and slightly untrue story of Domino Harvey's life as a bounty hunter. The story is completely discontinuous and confusing to watch. Certain aspects of the plot were ridiculous and totally unbelievable. It seems that all of the action scenes were loosely strung together by poor plot points and horrible acting. Keira Knightley does get totally naked in this one though. That is the one and only upside to this film. If you want to see her naked just fast forward the movie until about an hour and a half into it and you'll catch a whole lot of nipple. I strongly suggest that no one see this movie EVER!</3 | 0neg
|
supposedly based on the life of Domino Harvey a model turned bounty hunter. I'd say 95 % is fabricated. I always keep an open mind when it comes to movies, however, this movie lost its chances when it became apparent it had narration throughout the film, something i can't stand, and to top it off, the heroine of the story is so hateful and depicted as an arrogant b!ch I just wanted it to end with her being shot in the head. it's too incoherent, too flashy and way too boring, it's a who gives a crap kinda story, and i really think that big time directors need to make movies based on their own or a writer's own imagination not something based on some ignorant snobby brat's life. | 0neg
|
this film is really bad....... no i mean really really bad. Tony Scott is a terrible director. out of all the films he has made i only like enemy of the state, besides that he is one of the worse directors of all time. what appalled me the most is Richard Kelly (director of Donnie Darko) did the screenplay to this. now Richard Kelly is a genius in my eyes but to be involved in this makes hope he has learnt his lesson.<br /><br />now i love Mickey Rourke's new roles but i cant even like him in this because of the terrible story and look of it. don't get me wrong i still love Mickey Rourke but he has made a few accidence's in his time and this is one of them. i don't know what to say about Keira knightly, i think she's a little too overrated. i just cant feel for her in films.<br /><br />all in all this film is bad. thats it....... 1/10.......j.d Seaton | 0neg
|
I do not know if this movies problems are more the fault of Direction or Script. As you will see in many reviews the editing style is way overdone. It is absolutely distracting and without substance, which could be considered a good thing if you look at some of the quotes from the movie. I do not write many reviews here, but felt this movie was so awful that it deserved comment. Movies like this erode at Movie making as an Art form. Movies like this one show more and more clearly that the current Reality focus in cinema is revealing the quality of the characters behind them. People hone there craft, there 5 senses, and there business sense - overlooking there own inner life. However I do not put blame on them, it is more and more the unfortunate condition of this age - qualified by films like this one. But by proxy these Manufacturers I would dare not call Artists vomit there lack of inner life or regard onto the screen - diffusing it to everyone. A story of bounty hunters, guns guns and more guns, heavy handed flaunting of sex - for the oh so popular actress (did they write the lap dance scene after they signed her?), over saturated, over exaggerated, one liners, non-linear plots. All different and yet all the same. Annoying overwhelming music to push the emotion down your throat. A story? a development of character? or just withheld, missing information, revealed at the end to create the *effect* of a story - as if one took place. It altogether lacks anything remotely resembling subtlety. It is a caricature of stereotypes and genre. Where are the films with Awareness? What about subtlety of sound and music that you are not even aware is there? What about the depth of a look? What about editing with a point about mind and consciousness? yes even in action films this can happen. Sure they have honed a craft; but what use is it without soul or wisdom? of insight into the human condition? Can the people who commented and said that this is an apogee of art, or compare this to Picasso and others - I say put this next to Gandhi or the Godfather, even the original trilogy of star wars or the lord of the rings; then look me in the face and say it again. It is a good crew, but they need some help with depth and story. I hope they get it because I like the crews previous work. better luck next time. | 0neg
|
It's rare that I come across a film this awful, this annoying and this irritating. It is without doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen.<br /><br />The plot, when it's not a blur of confusing and pointlessly over flashy editing, is ludicrous. Why did Domino become such a bad-ass tough bitch? Because her gold fish died when she was a kid and this "traumatic" event left her emotionally stunted, and hating everyone. When the dialogue is not clichéd or banal, it's littered with laughable lines such as: "There are three kinds of people in this world: the rich... the poor... and everyone else". At one point the bounty hunters have some guy tied up in the back of their bus who has a combination number tattooed on his arm. Because of a confusing mobile phone call, instead of rolling his sleeve up and just reading the number, they blow off his arm with a shotgun. At another point, the bounty hunters take a bomb to a meeting arranged with the mafia and threaten to set the bomb off unless the mafia let them go!? Clearly not going to the meeting would have been just too easy.<br /><br />Keira Knightley is unconvincing and dreadfully miscast. Mickey Rourke does manage to salvage some credibility from this mess.<br /><br />I have enjoyed some of Tony Scott's previous films, True Romance being one, but all I could think while suffering this drivel was that it must have been made by a complete idiot. | 0neg
|
I was very excited about this film when I first saw the previews. Normally I see a preview this good and I buy the film outright. Something told me to... you know watch it first. I'm glad I did. Keira Knightley ruined all future films for me with this role. In the 2nd Pirates movie when it came out I went to see it. All I saw was Domino Harvey and I hated her more for it. I think that had to do with her hair and having to cut it short for Domino.<br /><br />Domino who? Who is Domino Harvey? I still don't really know or care. I don't know who she was in real life or who she was in this film. I didn't care about her character and even Keira getting partically naked didn't make it worth the movie. The direction was definitely lacking. The writing was trite and shallow. The editing was horrible. I don't mind the style so much as the poor overuse of it. There's a place for it. Good examples of choppy, MTV style, colorful editing (not sure if there's an official name) would be Fight Club; just off the top of my head. Even Enemy of the State had a semi similar editing style at parts. It was used tastefully and wasn't used as a crutch. I mean this is the same guy who directed Top Gun and Crimson Tide. Tony Scott please give me my time back.<br /><br />I understand there are many people who liked this movie. I guess the idea that you'll either completely love this movie or completely hate it is a fair assessment. Frankly, I hate it. | 0neg
|
Tony Scott has never been a very good director, but every film he's made after "Crimson Tide" seems to bring him one step closer to being the inarguable worst working today (Michael Bay may fall into the same category, but at least his big, dumb, delusional epics entertain on some primally perverse level). And like other overblown Hollywood biopics ("De-Lovely" and "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind," for instance) chronicling the lives of pretentious, overrated, or outright shallow ciphers given an aura of "mystique" by a society that thrives on the juicy behind-the-scenes details, "Domino" is a film that begins with little potential, and dashes that infinitesimal amount before the sixty-minute mark. With an already-distended running time of 128 minutes, the film feels twice as long, and spending time with characters this obnoxiously superficial and forgettable (unlike the superior "Rules of Attraction," Scott's attempts to tinge the proceedings with irony via Domino's smug, self-aware-rich-girl voice-over only draws attention to the film's sledgehammer cluelessness) becomes an act only masochists could find pleasurable. The story? Spoiled-upper-crust-babe Domino Harvey (Keira Knightley, in an ersatz-badass performance as shallow as her gorgeous looks) is sick of the shallow lifestyles of the rich and famous in Los Angeles, and accosts gruff bounty hunters Mickey Rourke and Edgar Ramirez to learn a more exciting trade; along the way, there are double-crosses, shootouts, media attention (courtesy of a tongue-in-cheek Christopher Walken, phoning in his trademark sleazebag), and laughable hints at romance. Scott cuts the film together in segments that rarely last more than a few seconds, cranking up the resolution to make the film a neon-drenched nightmare that's frankly unpleasant to watch--if Scott's given an opportunity to shakily frame an image, ghost it, or distort it in some way, he will; but all this tacky stylistic overload overwhelms what little plot, characterization, and suspense the film has (to say nothing for its, ehm, "entertainment" value). Most of the characters come off as either contemptible or stereotypical, oftentimes both (observe the unbearable, several-minute segment where an African-American introduces a new list of racial categorizations on "Jerry Springer"), and I found myself wishing they would all get the "tails" end of our protagonist's coin by the end. "Domino" is utter, unmitigated trash--whatever interest in this individual Scott hoped to inspire in his audience, it is lost in a sea of migraine-inducing neon pretension a few minutes in. | 0neg
|
What of Domino did I hate over everything, and I mean everything, else? Perhaps it was the overall glorification of being a bounty hunter; maybe it was the sexism masquerading as an involving and interesting study of a hard bodied female lead character; maybe it was the mere look of the film with its bizarre yellow glow and distorted blue tints or the manner in which it takes an actress like Lucy Lui; who deserves a lot better than this junk; and has her sit there in the one spot in the room the light cannot directly hit with the same dumb look on her face. Maybe it's the editing; that horrid rapid fire editing and the manner in which lines of dialogue echo as they're uttered by people like Kiera Knightly who, if you buy as a bounty hunter, then you'll probably be able to kid yourself into believing the world will end in 2012.<br /><br />Nobody comes away from Domino with any sort credibility, absolutely nobody at all. It is a painful and misguided experience, taking inspiration from things like Natural Born Killers and letting loose ideas to an audience not even there for them. The principal question is: 'Was Domino supposed to be some kind of comedy?' what with its hilariously bad lead uttering certain lines that desperately want us to think she's coming across as 'tough' but really, she resembles more an arrogant fifteen year old girl on her first day at public school, attempting to impress her peers. There are things you genuinely don't know how to react to, whether they're supposed to be funny or not. If it is supposed to be a comedy, that begs the next question: 'Is the life of a bounty hunter really the sort worth exploiting for laughs?' I don't think so.<br /><br />The film opens with the title card 'Based on a true story........sort of.' If that's supposed to be some sort of post-modernist technique that enables director Tony Scott to bend and manipulate the story of Domino Harvey for his own unique purpose, then you're simply on another planet. Truth is, in that one opening quote the film identifies the subject matter and the original text before completely copping out and saying 'sort of' which I guess is supposed to enable them to make Domino older than she should be and appear on Jerry Springer. Following this, we learn of Domino's relationship with her father who died in the film when when she was ten or something; here is the first use of the 'sort of' cop out as in real life she was just four. But if the film had gone by reality's dates then her entire drive would've been born out of the death of........her goldfish.<br /><br />We are then thrust into action with Ed Mosbey (Rourke); Domino (Knightley) herself and would-be love interest Choco (Ramírez). During the scene, an American mother is pinned down via gunfire in her own caravan in the back end of nowhere as she pleads for her son's life to be spared. What a really misguided opening; presenting its three leads as nasty people who break into trailers, fire off weapons at innocents we don't know anything of and come close to shooting their pet dogs.<br /><br />The immediate feeling is of hatred toward the three leads, a feeling of 'No, why are you doing this? Why is this happening?' Bad seeds are planted and, wouldn't you know it, they stick. The film is painful to watch, excruciating even; as these three mug their way through the piece complete with supporting performances from actors known for playing characters in Beverly Hills 90210. Here is another daft post-modernist slant, people playing themselves and that 'sort of' Joker card being played again. Christopher Walken even pops up in a really stupid role that reeks of Robert Downey Jr's Natural Born Killers character.<br /><br />So as the film plods on and Domino is cast into Ed and Choco's gang, purely for her good looks I might add, it appears amidst the plot to do with fake driver's registration I.Ds or something that Choco and Domino may have feelings for one another. The problem is, as each performer is doing such a bad job in their respective character; there is no chemistry and no feeling between the two; the film isn't a love story so why even bother going down that road in the first place? Does anyone care about these two characters amidst all the fast edits and stuff blowing up? If there is any 'feeling' between Choco and Domino, it exists on such a small, tiny, minimalist scale that you have to ask why it's even included.<br /><br />So then the film feels the need to crank things up narrative-wise. We find out the reason for the fake I.Ds that are linked to someone else and a guy talks on a cell phone in a sound proof bubble. The sound proof bubble I can believe but how does he get his phone under the water and into the bubble in the first place without it becoming flooded? He must've swam really quickly double the speed of the film's fasted edit which means something in the region of .01 of a second. Yeah, sure. The film's story becomes both too complicated and just plain arbitrary before resorting to a really dumb climax in which more stuff blows up. Plus, there's a really distasteful scene to do with a wall chart full of new ethnicities and the film's comedy runs SO dry, that it has to resort to the "Jerry, Jerry!" chant whilst people are on a popular American talk show. When did we last laugh at "Jerry! Jerry!"? when we were, say, seven years old? I came away feeling sad and depressed at such a film's existence. | 0neg
|
how can you take her hard-living, glamorously violent bounty hunter story serious with *that* accent? It's absurd. Apart from that, the visual style of the directer is nauseating and gimmicky, the plot is a shallow, boring, confused gangster-movie rehash and the acting is unconvincing. The film introduces new characters all the way throughout the film and is told in fragmented flashback - mostly out of sequence - seemingly just to keep you nice and confused. The film ever shows you THINGS THAT DON'T REALLY HAPPEN and then later says "that didn't really happen, this happened" - see the (apparent) killing of the (fake) 'first ladies'. What have we seen the first, wrong, sequence of events for then?<br /><br />Terrible choice in casting, a convoluted, messy plot and a headache-inducing directorial style. 1/5. | 0neg
|
What do you get when you mix a lump of clichés with a directionless pacing and a group of characters who you don't care about and a failed attempt at creating an appealing visual style and an even bigger lump of clichés and a weak sense of humor and a really big budget? Why, you get one of the most intolerably unwatchable movies ever made! I'm referring, of course, to Domino.<br /><br />Here are some things that people might say during the viewing of this movie:<br /><br />"Ooh, wow, the storyline is told out of sequence, that hasn't been done a billion times before. And much more skillfully than in this movie."<br /><br />"Wow, look at all of the flashing lights and grainy film texture and elaborate transitions! The director is trying so hard to make things look arty and to establish a visual style! It's just too bad that none of these effects add anything to the movie or make sense with the scenes they're in, and it's also too bad that most of them come across as irritating!"<br /><br />"I've heard that exchange of dialogue in about twenty thousand movies before!"<br /><br />"I've seen this scene in about thirty thousand movies before!"<br /><br />"This one too!"<br /><br />"Uh, didn't they reveal this 'plot twist' about half an hour ago? Was that supposed to be surprising?"<br /><br />"If this movie is supposed to be showing a 'tough chick' going around kicking ass... when why doesn't she do very much of it?"<br /><br />"I can't believe how unoriginal this dialogue is."<br /><br />"How long is this thing? I feel like I've been watching it for over four hours already."<br /><br />"I have no idea what just happened, but also, I don't particularly feel motivated to try to figure it out."<br /><br />"Is this over yet?"<br /><br />"I want my money back."<br /><br />"The songs in this soundtrack feel so misused here."<br /><br />"It's ironic that all of the cursing they use actually detracts from the impact of each one."<br /><br />"UGH."<br /><br />And, finally: "I might have to end my friendship with the person who recommended this movie to me."<br /><br />In summation, this movie is a failure in nearly every aspect. Avoid watching it at all costs. If your house is on fire and this movie is playing in the only room that isn't flammable, you should seriously consider being burned alive instead.<br /><br />(If I sound bitter, it's because I just spent over two hours watching this movie and, uh, I didn't enjoy it very much.) | 0neg
|
Now I had the best intentions when watching this one. I like some of Tony Scott's work, also a friend of mine told me it was a great movie, even though I heard otherwise from other people. But this was simply hopeless. <br /><br />In my humble opinion, Tony Scott was trying too hard. It was all just too much. Allow me to elaborate. <br /><br />Miss Knightley was overacting, and not in a good way. The people who did perform well, were Mickey Rourke, Edgar Ramirez, and Christopher Walken, but their screen time just wasn't able to save the movie. <br /><br />There were a few scenes that jumped out in their originality, yet somehow it felt like they were written by someone other than the main writer. A certain tune was used around 4 times, which really started to bug after the second time. I'm a firm believer of not using the same tune more than once. <br /><br />Also, the editing really went out on this one, as the cutting rate is rather high. Oh, and the repetitive echoing of some of Keira's lines simply sounded cheesy after hearing it for the second, third, fourth time, and so on. <br /><br />Basically, my opinion is that if you want to see an action-flick that is high-paced and "somewhat" funny, and you don't care about everything I mentioned above, you might like it. <br /><br />(On a side note: I'm not a Keira Knightley fan.) | 0neg
|
I am, as many are, a fan of Tony Scott films. When this movie came out I had high hopes that it would be like 'Man On Fire'. To find out that the movie it's the furthest thing from it! The story was treading water from the get go, and the choice of Mickey Rourke was not such such a good idea. And the whole 'arm'scene was too gratuitous! <br /><br />The movie is centered around Kiera Kinghtly, and this movie reveals that she'll never become a movie star! The movie brought some of the worst acting ever.<br /><br />I like Tony Scott's direction 'n all, but this takes the whole friggin cake! Sorry Ton, 1 out of 10! | 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.