text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
This is an installment in the notorious Guinea Pig series. A short lived japanese TV-show, that got cancelled after a psychopath admitted to being inspired in the killing of a young schoolgirl by the show. This short in the series is, like all the other films in the series, practically without any story. A group of guys have captured a young woman. They tie her down and proceeds to torturing her to death while videofilming her. They beat her, pour boiling oil over her, use pliers on her and finally, in "loving" closeup, push a needle through her eye. This is the most straightforward of all the Guinea Pig movies, and one of the first. It was probably this film, more than any of the others, that gave Guinea Pig the rumour of being snuff. They certainly gave inspiration to Nicolas Cage's movie "8 mm.". These movies have gotten quite popular in horror circles. They have progressed to more polished, but equally graphic movies like "Naked Blood". They probably fill the void left by the Mondo movies, that got slightly cleaned up and became reality TV. Not recommended, but will probably allure those who will see anything once, and wonder why afterwards, I know I did. | 0neg
|
We have reached the ceiling of implausibility with this movie. Basically, Dinosaurs come aboard this ship piloted by some weird old fart named Neweyes(which I needed after I watched this movie). Apparently, Neweyes hears the wishes of children everywhere and decides that he should grant the wish of children that Dinosaurs be brought into modern times to be seen by everybody for shameless exploitation. The dinosaurs eat this stuff that makes them smarter(Too bad the screenwriters didn't have it). By the way, does it seem weird that out of ALL the wishes of the children in the world, Neweyes grants the wish of bringing Dinosaurs to modern times? Why not grant the wishes of kids to stop famine? Disease? War? I mean come on! Doesn't Neweyes have anything better to do with all this power he has??? Finally, when the Dinosaurs get to modern times they start singing, dancing and wrecking havoc(basically the kind of thing you might see on a bad LSD trip, I mean where else could you see a T-Rex playing golf and jumping on a balloon of Spider-man?). They end up in the circus and Neweyes Brother Screweyes(???) makes the kids that have befriended the dinosaurs sign a blank contract. Why? Why would kids sign a blank contract??? Screweyes says that if the dinosaurs take some..."Brain-Drain" That he will let the children go. The dinosaurs instead of tearing apart the evil Screweyes limb from limb, give in and agree to his terms. What?! This is stupid! They could have just menaced him, made him drop the contract, eaten it then walked off with the kids. I think the filmmakers were trying to show that violence is bad, which is a moot point when finally the dinosaurs escape and a bunch of crows envelop Screweyes and apparently completely eat him. Oh yeah, that's not violent at all! We're back makes no sense, it's not fun, it's goofy, it's stupid, poorly written and contains some of the biggest plot holes ever committed to film. Even for a kid's film... this is BAD. | 0neg
|
Children love dinosaurs. It's somewhat part of their culture. But they've got The Land Before Time. The original. At least that movie had heart. This. This movie is just plain pathetic. Just because kids love dinosaurs doesn't mean you can just slap together any old story and show it to the children. This movie has no plot, the whole premise is stupid, and it's more by the numbers stuff. Not as soul sucking as Theodore Rex, but it's lightyears away from being a Land Before Time. | 0neg
|
When I was a kid, I remember watching this while visiting a friend of our "Uncle" Phil. We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story is a silly cartoon about a dinosaur called Rex (voiced by the wonderful John Goodman). He tells a little boy dinosaur the story about how the dinosaurs came back to Earth to live. He explains that he was part of the thing that brought them back, along with some friends. The Doctor/Professor villain of this film I think might have been responsible for them being them back, but I don't care about him. The kids might like this, but personally it is just too cheesy. John Goodman was probably the only decent thing. Poor! | 0neg
|
LOL! Not a bad way to start it. I thought this was original, but then I discovered it was a clone of the 1976 remake of KING KONG. I never saw KING KONG until I was 15. I saw this film when I was 9. The film's funky disco music will get stuck in your head! Not to mention the film's theme song by the Yetians. This is the worst creature effects I've ever seen. At the same time this film remains a holy grail of B-movies. Memorable quotes: "Take a tranquilizer and go to bed." "Put the Yeti in your tank and you have Yeti power." I remember seeing this film on MOVIE MACRABE hosted by Elvira. There is one scene where it was like KING KONG in reverse! In KING KONG he grabs the girl and climbs up the building, but in this film he climbs down the building and grabs the girl (who was falling)! Also around that year was another KONG clone MIGHTY PEKING MAN (1977) which came from Hong Kong. There is a lot of traveling matte scenes and motorized body parts. This film will leave you laughing. It is like I said, just another KING KONG clone. Rated PG for violence, language, thematic elements, and some scary scenes. | 0neg
|
I was very disappointed in this 1970 film based on a Bernard Malamud story. This is basically a story of possible redemption, racial bias and the unfulfillment of life based on mistrust.<br /><br />A black Jewish angel is sent to help a struggling tailor and his critically ill wife. If Morris Mishkin (Zero Mostel) will only believe in the angel (Belafonte), his wife Fanny (Ida Kaminska) will recover. The problem is that Morris has basically given up on life and just refuses to believe that Belafonte is an angel.<br /><br />When he believes it, Fanny improves but in the end he has doubts and Fanny suffers accordingly. It would have been very nice if there had been an English translation in the last scene when a dying Fanny speaks to Morris.<br /><br />Jan Kadar, who successfully directed Miss Kaminska in her Oscar nominated brilliant performance in 1966's "The Shop on Main Street" directs this film as well. Kaminska is reduced in the film to mostly bed scenes and her kindness in her speech really doesn't convey the desperate situation that she faces. She keeps calling for Ruthie, their daughter, who disobeyed them by marrying out of the Jewish religion. For most of the film, she does not realize the Angel's appearance in her apartment.<br /><br />The scene in the pharmacy is muddled and the scene where the Angel's girl friend confronts Belafonte in their apartment, is memorable but all too brief.<br /><br />We don't know why Belafonte is in danger and why he has died.<br /><br />Those viewing this film must have left the theater in a state of depression and desperation. | 0neg
|
I watched this on the tube last night. The actor's involved first caught my attention. The first scenes were attention getters. Some funny some sad. Good character development. I felt that the latter third of the film diverged. If it was not for the early part of the movie I would have stopped watching. I kept watching wanting to how how it tied together.<br /><br />Unfortunately I feel that it never happened. I especially did not like the extend period that several of the character were talking yiddish (?). Was that the other shoe?<br /><br />Would I recommend? No, I think not. As other reviewers mention much of the slang is dated (60's jive) but it was not too distracting. The ending totally turned me off. | 0neg
|
I absolutely hate it when a film completely falls apart near the end, after you've already invested an hour into it. and that's what happened with this film. i was intrigued by its actors and the fact that malamud wrote its source story. I haven't gone to read that story but I cannot imagine that it ends like this film ends.Fortunately i didn't pay good money to see or rent it because my library had it. ohhhh such a waste of excellent acting (the wife in particular was so perfect).but milo o'shea as a Jew?!!!! now THAT was funny. I haven't researched into its making but it played like the director lost his marbles or died 3/4 of the way through the film. Before that point, a story and characters were developing,there were a number of neat plot points and there wasn't too much time wasted. but ooh that last 1/2 hour- if that wasn't the screwiest, most worthless denouement I've ever witnessed, I don't know what is. I just hate it when one's faith is so destroyed like that; it feels like an act of violence. | 0neg
|
Somebody called Howard Koch a schlockmeister but he did write the screenplay for "Casablanca", didn't he? Or didn't he. Maybe there's more than one Koch slinking around in Hollywood, and I'm not too fond of "Casablanca" anyway. Wait a minute -- yes, there is another Howard Koch slinking around Hollwyood. That's the one who wrote "Casablanca." No matter. I'll put as much care into this comment as "Howard W. Koch" put into this production, which is to say only a little.<br /><br />You know what this sounds like? Somebody read Cliff's Notes on Shakespeare's "King Lear" and decided, since no original thoughts were aboard the Inbound Inspiration Express, to update it and Hollywoodize it with a happy ending.<br /><br />There are differences. Lear decides to divvy up his vast estates between three sisters and before doing so, asks them how much they love him. Two of the sisters throw themselves at his feet and brown nose him to get at his money. The third is the good girl and refuses to go operatic on Lear. But in the play, Lear remains alive to regret his decision to give the two connivers his stash and deprive the honest girl. He winds up crazy and naked during a gale on the moors, putting flowers in his hair and hallucinating. Kids can do that to you. (Take my kid, for instance. After all the effort I squandered on raising him, does he show any interest in becoming a doctor or a lawyer? No.) In the end, everybody in the play dies.<br /><br />In the movie, evidently, the good sister is morose and suicidal but when she tries to off herself, somebody jumps in and saves her, so the ending is, more or less, happy. That's the difference between Hollywood and a genuine tragedy, unless you define Hollywood as a tragedy sufficient unto itself. | 0neg
|
I found this film to be an interesting study in cause and effect but little more than that. The basic plot follows the lives of a handful of people and how their actions (deliberate and otherwise) effect the lives of the others. The film's premise holds great promise but I feel it fails to deliver on its promise. Too much time is spent telling the audience about chaos theory and too little time actually showing it. As a result, I never got a true feel for any of the characters and never made a good connection with them emotionally. By the end of the movie, I had a "so what" attitude about all of them. A stronger direction in character development would have made this movie great, but as it stands it is merely so-so | 0neg
|
A missed train. A wrong phone number. An extra cup of coffee. What happens to those around you when you make a seemingly innocuous decision? Most people don't give it a thought as they absorbed in their own thoughts and actions.<br /><br />"Happenstance" tells the story of the interrelations and cause-and-effect of the mundane as it pertains to a group of normal Parisian folk. It has all the components of what passes for contemporary theater, with the full cast of the dysfunctional and disillusioned.<br /><br />There's a cheating husband, an illegal immigrant, a classic slacker, a pickpocket, a crazy grandmother, an annoying girlfriend, a selfish roommate, and a homeless man. Audrey Tautou serves as the erstwhile protagonist (in the sense that she's on camera as much as anyone else and opens and closes the film) and normal girl who just can't seem to find the right rhythm in her life.<br /><br />She learns at the beginning of her day from a stranger on a train what her horoscope holds for her. What happens to her in the course of the day is told through various characters. Does the prediction come true? The concept is good, but the storytelling is flimsy. The connections from one event to the next are weak. There's better storytelling in 15 seconds of the Liberty Mutual insurance commercial where one person sees a good deed and passes it along to another than there is in two hours of Happenstance.<br /><br />If you enjoy Audrey Tautou, then you certainly can sacrifice the time for this film, but you'll finish it dissatisfied and wondering what this same storyline could be if it were handled by a better producer and director. | 0neg
|
Witty. Quirky. Genuine. Surreal. Butterfly wings? One could ask what all of these words best describe, and some (those in fuse with the international film community) may quickly say Happenstance, but others may jump aboard the more American train and immediately yell, The Butterfly Effect. Strangely, I would be one of those screaming for that sci-fi Kutcher film mainly because none of those words that I initially mentioned at the start of this paragraph accurately depicts the Tautou feature that I witnessed. Sure, we all loved her in Amelie and thought she was the daughter of Jesus in The Da Vinci Code, but in this film first-time director (of a feature film at least) Laurent Firode doesn't give Tautou the opportunity to shine. Sadly, he gives nobody the opportunity to really demonstrate themselves because he is too delicately caught up in the moments of "random chance" to bring this film to anything but just a shimmer (never a true boil). Firode has ample, and I use "ample" as a small word, moments throughout this film where he could have built us a fantastical story, a genuinely whimsical fairy-tale of love and coincidence, but instead he fell face-first into a mud-bucket of chaotic intertwining that overwhelmed us with inconsistent characters and a story that left us gasping for less.<br /><br />Tautou's beautiful face adorns the cover of this box, but do not be so taken immediately as I did in assuming that this was going to be another monumental journey into Tautou's French cinema. Tautou is in this film, do not get me wrong, but one could argue that she is not at the center of this story. Firode's job is to create a series of random events that eventually will lead to an audience friendly (albeit confusing) ending which exemplifies that meaning of refreshing "melodrama". He utterly, utterly fails. Firode fails by giving us, the audience, too many characters. With too many characters he gives us too many random interventions, and by the end you don't really care who is who, or what is what, or how is how; your main focus happens to be centered solely on the ending credits and the time destination of their arrival. Tautou could have saved this film from the disaster it was if only Firode would have given her the center. Alas, he did not, but attempted to seemingly force a group of 12 through a theoretical film hole about the size of a penny. It just didn't work and we were left with a jam in which we were completely stuck.<br /><br />Firode fails because he focus' so intently on the minor details that, for one of those rare film occurrences, he actually forgets the central focus. I can say that there was no defined central focus to Happenstance. In the beginning he attempts to create one with our two supposed main characters discovering that they share the same birthday and their horoscope promises love by the moonlight, but we never go back to that throughout the film. Instead, again, we are bombarded with new characters, stuffy scenes, and meaningless drivel obviously chosen to direct us away from an actual story and more into a world full of "ifs, ands, and buts". I couldn't do it. I couldn't believe this film. Writer Firode (yes, the same guy directing this garbage) uses a technique so primitive in this film that I immediately felt like ending it immediately. He must have been assuming that many of us were incapable of actually following the storyline (or the scientific premise) because he grabs the aid of a homeless person to actually fill in the respective blanks. I didn't need this, nor do I think Firode needed to belittle his audience in this matter. While there were other elements that just didn't seem to work for me at all (again, felt like a jumbled Parisian collage of shredded paper), this was the icing on the cake. I don't need my hand held through films.<br /><br />I will give this film one star for credit. This is a rather difficult genre to master successfully. Time travel films are especially hard because of the innumerable amounts of possibilities that are never accounted for, but with Happenstance it works because Firode semi-explores the different avenues. While I will counter with saying that he does not do it well, it did make for at least five full minutes of enjoyment. I liked where Firode was headed with this film, he had a genuinely diagramed story, but the final execution just blew this film to shreds. Firode could have saved this film if he would have strengthened his characters, while lightening up his premise and story. I think my overall mood of this film would have changed if just these two simple directions were taken. Oh, how I only wish I could time travel back to the production of this film to show Firode the errors of his ways.<br /><br />Overall, for the first time (and probably last), this was a Tautou film that I must say utterly disappointed me. From the choppy opening to the apathetic ending, I just felt that Happenstance failed due to Firode's leadership and horrid marketing. Marketing is something that I didn't mention before, but why would anyone purchase this film thinking that it was an Amelie 2 (per the title released in Hong Kong), and why would you place Tautou squarely on the cover knowing full well that she wasn't carrying this film at all. I believe that from the first minute that passed on my DVD player, this film was in shambles. While I will applaud his subject, everything else was well below the level of mediocrity. I cannot suggest this film to anyone.<br /><br />Grade: * out of ***** | 0neg
|
The movie has one nude scene: A man sitting on the edge of the bed, with his exposed genitals smack dab in the middle of the screen. It is quite a long scene. What was the point? I almost think it was meant to be funny but we were watching it with my mother and it wasn't funny to have THAT staring at us for what seemed like a full minute.<br /><br />The movie is cold. None of the characters are even likeable. Audrey Tatou is cute, of course, but her character is an unhappy girl.<br /><br />I really would not recommend this movie. I had expected it to be charming and fresh but it was depressing. I wondered if the director was from a very upper crust, educated French family and he looks down on these characters.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
First of all, I'd like to tell you that I'm into comics, anime, animation and such stuff. It is true that everyone has his own preferences, but you can trust me on this movie. I'll be objective. To begin with the story - it's OK. Follows the story line of the comic books as far as I'm familiar with them. But the animation... Well, it's not actually terrible, but it's definitely cheap and mediocre. It would be a lot better if they didn't try to imitate the anime style and sticked to the original comic book style drawings. If we pretend not to see the rare sloppy effects like fire and lightnings you could tell that the movie is made about 10 years ago and even more. Looks a little bit like the original Vampire Hunter D from 1985. Take a look at Heavy Metal FAKK 2000 for instance - 4 years ago they made a movie that looks a hell lot better! In addition to this the voice talents do nothing remarkable, the music is nothing special. So all in all - it lacks atmosphere. I watched it, but I cannot tell I really enjoyed it. It just does not capture you. There's plenty of blood and violence, but that does not impress me at all. May be it will be shocking for someone who was never watched more mature oriented animations and sees animated blood for the first time (is there anyone around?), but I don't think this is the audience for this movie. So they could add a little nudity and spice to it. The chicks around Lucifer were quite tasty, and hell, we have Lady Death herself! There are few sexy looks, but that's not enough. Instead of Bill Brown's music I think it would look better on a hard rock / heavy metal soundtrack. All in all - the movie isn't that bad, but if you want something better take the original Heavy Metal, Heavy Metal FAKK 2000, Ralph Bakshi's Fire and Ice or Wizards maybe. And of course - Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust | 0neg
|
Well, I can honestly say that this is the first time that I experienced a film that had literally no meat or potatoes in it. The entire film felt like it was just the salad with no main course. The story line was fallible and laughable, the characters were one-dimensional, the realism was out the window, and the animation was done by four-year olds. Does that cover it? I have never been more embarrassed for a concept in my entire life. I have never read the comics or seen the other programs with this character, but from the looks of the other reviews I am not off base with my observation.<br /><br />To begin, the story moved too quickly. For someone new to this character and situations, I needed more built into creating the reasons instead of finding the solution. I have seen other Anime (if you could call this one an Anime) that do great things with their characters because they take the time to develop them. There was nothing set aside for Lady Death. In a few short scenes, we see her train with Cremator and instantly become this aggressive she-beast of Hell. This was hard for me to swallow, considering moments before she was introduced as this weak and feeble woman controlled by her father. Suddenly, she is immersed with hatred and can do battle with an existence that has been around for millions of years. This was absurd. The presentation of Lady Death was poor, to say the least. I felt as if she was nothing more than an animated character instead of a desperate woman with revenge on the mind. For me, it just didn't work. She was nothing more than eye-candy for prepubescent boys wanting to ogle the mass quantities of skin that she suddenly grew on her chest when training with Cremator. Oh, I felt sick just watching her. The same goes for the character of Cremator. Who was this random person? The explanation they gave wasn't enough, and instead I was left with more incoherent babbling than actual development. It is a very sad day in Hell when we forgo characters to show more violence and action, especially in an animated feature.<br /><br />Next, there was Lucifer himself. Let me just say that I think I could do battle with the King of Hell and survive. He was weak, his voice was laughable, and he just didn't represent the image that I had in my mind. It was as if Disney was in control and wanted to make him semi-PC. He lacked the darkness and corrupt nature that Lucifer embodies. He was not the ruler of Hell, but instead just a lackey that had a bigger place to live. Speaking of living or dying, how can you die again in Hell? That was a concept that definitely needed more explanation. Most of the characters were worrying about dying, when they didn't even consider the option that they were already dead. That is how they got to Hell. I think it was this level of thinking that ruined the film for me. I didn't quite capture the notion that your soul was still in a solid body in Hell, but that could just be me
or maybe it was because there was NO DEVELOPMENT in this story. There was nothing built, just preparing.<br /><br />The battle sequences were hysterically bad. The animation in this cartoon felt like it was made in the early 90s. There was nothing impressive about the way that this film was drawn. Why are we, America, so behind on animation? It is huge in Asia, and it is creeping in hardcore here because we keep making films like Lady Death that do not challenge or use any part of imagination. We are cheap, and this film shows it.<br /><br />Overall, this film was bad. The animation coupled with the horrendous voice work was cheap. I had head somewhere that this film as in production for a long time, which is hard to understand because I think I could have made this film on my credit card. The production was horrendous as well as the story. Nothing was developed, leaving huge gaping plot holes that nearly everyone fell into. The strength of the characters was missing, and nothing was explained. I wasted my time with this one and would like to warn others so that when Death does come, you don't find yourself in my state and regretting the fact that you wasted 80 minutes on this piece of garbage.<br /><br />BLAH! <br /><br />Grade: * out of ***** | 0neg
|
I am a huge fan of the comic book series, but this movie fell way below my expectations. I expected a Heavy Metal 2000 kinda feel to it.....slow moving, bad dialogue, lots o' blood.....but this was worse than anything I could have imagined. <br /><br />The plot line is almost the same as the comic, but the good points pretty much stop there. The characters don't have the energy or spirit that drew my attention in the comic series. The movie only covers a small portion of the comic, and the portion used is more slow and boring than later parts. The focus in the movie is on the insignificant events instead of the more interesting overall plot of the comic book.<br /><br />With the right people working on this project, it could have been amazing. Sadly, it wasn't that way, so now there is yet another terrible movie that few will see and even fewer will love. My copy will surely collect dust for years until I finally throw it out. | 0neg
|
And it falls squarely into the category of "awesomely bad" - ie a movie drunk students would rent to get a kick out of. I was at the sci fi movie festival and all I remember is a wave after wave of hysterical laughter as this movie premiered. Other critiques will better describe this movie's fecal nature, and I felt oh-so-bad at the poor guy from the production company who had turned up, obviously to gauge the audience's reaction. What he got was the sci fi equivalent of a drunken student audience, and after a "serious" anime movie, I think it was "sky blue", the audience was in a sombre mood, and then this movie opened and within seconds everyone in the room was rolling in the isles. I will bullet point the worst parts;<br /><br />Script: The funniest, and worst part of this movie, it clunks along a linear and predictable road with the occasional ill-thought-out aside. Rubbish, but eminently laughable.<br /><br />Animation: Poorly done, and put together, if you can put up with drab backgrounds and gradually skimpier costumes for the heroine (I know I can!), then watch out for the montage where she "trasforms" from a Swedish peasant girl into LADY DEATH!!!<br /><br />Characters: So one-dimensional its painful, there is a brief backstory (with side-splitting lines of dialogue) and little light is shone on the actual motivation behind some of the main characters.<br /><br />So, in a nutshell, if you've got a captive audience and a few beverages lying around (try and make sure they're alcoholic to ease the pain), then slip this movie into the DVD and get in a "mystery science theatre 3000" mindset. There is no other motivation to watch this movie other than to laugh at it, and its not meant to be a comedy. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE ALONE. It could possible be even more boring to watch solo than "New World" with Colin Farrell as you won't be able to have a laugh at the ridiculousness with a friend or two. | 0neg
|
There's really no way to beat around the bush in saying this, Lady Death: The Motion Picture just plain sucks. Aside from the fact that the main character is a well endowed blonde running around Hell in a leather bikini with occasional spurts of graphic violence, the movie seems to have been made with the mentality of a 1980's cartoon based on a line of action figures. The bad guy himself even talks like a Skeletor wannabe, has the obligatory inept henchman, and lives in a lair that looks to have been patterned after the domain of the villain from the old Saturday morning Blackstar cartoon. Just don't expect any humor other than the sometimes howlingly bad dialogue. At other times it feels like the kind of anime tale better suited to hentai, yet there is no sex, no tentacle rape (Thank goodness!) and very little sex appeal, this despite the physical appearance of the title character. There is simply no adult edge to this material, unless you count the half-naked heroine and bloody deaths. Essentially, what we have here is a feature length episode of She-Ra, Princess of Power, but with skimpier clothes and more gore. | 0neg
|
I also saw this amazingly bad piece of "anime" at the London Sci-Fi Festival. If you HAVE to watch this thing, do so with a large audience preferably after a few beers, you may then glean some enjoyment from it. <br /><br />I found the dialogue hilarious, lodged in my mind is the introduction of Cremator. The animation is awful. It is badly designed and badly executed. It may have been a good idea for the producers to have hired at least one person who was not colour blind.<br /><br />There's nothing else to say really, this film is a failure on every level. | 0neg
|
This movie was a great disappointment for me. I had been waiting for this movie to come out for years, and I was a faithful follower of Chaos Comics until they went bankrupt. Not only did they cut out half the story line, but they altered information. The statement that Lucifer is Hope's Father is untrue. He did corrupt her father, but he himself is not her father. The voices also did not suit the characters, and once you hear the voice of a beloved character, the voice you heard in your mind can never be returned. I can not even remember everything about this film that was wrong. The bottom line is if you love Lady Death do not watch this movie. It just did not do the comic justice at all!! | 0neg
|
Oh my GOD this was so bad! The story was weak - at best - and the animation was flat and lifeless - even childish. This film takes itself far too seriously...unless of course they meant to be funny. I saw this last week at the London Sci-Fi Festival and the entire audience was laughing at every scene. I think my favourite was 'shouldn't you be studying medicine at Oopsalof'! And I also think they were trying to see how many times they could cram in the character Nicalo's only line 'we will be together...it is our destiny.' I'm sorry but after the first time, the words lost all meaning.<br /><br />And what was with the apple?<br /><br />I recommend this as a lesson to Americans: You cannot animate, so please don't try. You only embarrass yourselves. | 0neg
|
I was excited to hear that Cesar Montano had decided to make a movie in the Cebuano language. (Not 'dialect' as most Filipinos will incorrectly refer to it as. As Cebuano and Tagalog are as mutually unintelligible as French and Spanish are to each other.) But I was greatly disappointed when i saw this movie. Being a Canadian, of Cebuano parents, I was optimistic about the revival of the Visayan film industry when I heard about this film. I was further excited to hear that it wasn't another stupid action movie or melodrama as Filipinos love these types of movies. But alas, I was short-changed.<br /><br />Panaghoy serves as an ego trip for Cesar Montano. Montano of course plays the hero of the movie. And when I say 'hero' I mean in the most stereotypical of manners; his function is to win the heart of a girl and lead the Bol-anons to victory against the Japanese. His character has no depth or complexity. He just fits the hero mold. The rest of the characters are one dimensional; they all fit their cookie cutter roles.<br /><br />I'm all for slow-moving/meditative movies but this movie was just slow moving. It didn't really meditate on anything. Just because a movie is historically-themed, a drama and slow-moving doesn't make it a well-made film.<br /><br />Particularly annoying is the American actor Philip Anthony. His performance was embarrassing.<br /><br />If Montano wanted to revive the Visayan film industry he should have really thought this through. He said he wanted to make Visayan movies that could compete at Cannes and Toronto etc. but really, this movie would have been booed and hissed at at such festivals. To get Visayan films into the mainstream consciousness he should have at least made a movie that would have attracted audiences, even if it meant sacrificing quality. Obviously he didn't think about or get information on what kind of movies garner awards at Cannes so an audience-attracting movie would have been at least a foot in the door.<br /><br />I'm afraid now that Visayan movies will not be made for a long time again because of this movie. If ever I said to a Filipino that I want to see more Visayan movies of course I'd get an answer like, "Visayans don't make good movies. Didn't you see Panaghoy Sa Suba?" Of course this is ludicrous as it is one example of a Visayan movie and probably the only example that anyone nowadays would be likely to see.<br /><br />An example of movies that are meditative, not just slow moving, are the Tagalog film Blackout or David Lynch's The Straight Story. I hate to promote the Tagalog language as it is endlessly and unfairly promoted and shoved down the throats of non-Tagalog Filipinos but for the sake of calling a spade a spade I say that Blackout is a VERY good movie. These movies rely heavily on what Hitchcock called 'pure cinema'. Images without words are used to convey the story. But I bend the definition a bit for the sake of these two movies in that these movies use images without words to convey the mood of the movie. and they do it very well. Panaghoy thinks that if they simply take sweeping shots of the landscape then they have established the mood.<br /><br />And what's with so many Filipino movies featuring a dying mother or grandmother??? | 0neg
|
I notice from the comments that most of the people discussing this movie are basing their remarks on the MST3K airing. That's fair enough (that is, after all, how it got its widest exposure), but, having had the misfortune of seeing "Final Justice" in its original form, I'd just like to share a few thoughts and comments on the uncut version.<br /><br />First off, it must be admitted that the original version is slightly more coherent than the MST3K broadcast, owing primarily to an expository scene between Rossano Brazzi and Venantino Venantini (I COULD use the characters' names instead of the actors', but I just love typing the words "Venantino Venantini"), explaining why Venantini's fugitive character can't just leave Malta right away. (It's not a very CONVINCING plot point, but at least the filmmakers tried to cover it.) Whether this scene was cut just for time or because it didn't provide much fodder for riffs, I don't know.<br /><br />Another plot point missing in the original: The stripper's betrayal of Venantino Venantini to Joe Don Baker, seemingly unmotivated in the MST3K version, is explained by an earlier, extremely unpleasant scene in which Venantini rapes her in the shower. While this does give her a motive for turning against him, the whole scenario is just really...icky. (There's no other word for it.)<br /><br />Some of the MST-worthy moments (the perpetual truncated shouts of "Son of a--" and the "deja vu" shooting of the sheriff) were purely the result of the edited-for-TV print they worked with, and were absent from the original movie.<br /><br />One scene I wish had made it into the MST3K version: Before entering the bar to question some people, Joe Don asks the Maltese policewoman accompanying him to stay outside, because "they see that uniform, they won't cooperate." However, Joe Don himself is wearing his ridiculous cowboy-slash-sheriff outfit, complete with shiny badge! I can't imagine why they passed on that great opportunity to make fun of him...<br /><br />One final observation on the original, uncut version of "Final Justice": Why, oh why, did they feel the need to put Venantino Venantini's naked butt up on the screen? | 0neg
|
While not as bad as it has been made to be (I have seen MUCH worse), this is still a very lame movie. Basically a rehash of Siegel's "Coogan's Bluff", with the main difference being that Clint Eastwood's hat has more charisma than the whole of Joe Don Baker, an unappealing actor if there was one.<br /><br />However, Venantino Venantini is great (and great fun) as the bad guy, sort of a budget Vittorio Gassman. He is the main reason to sit through this steampile, as the rest of the cast deliver mostly terrible acting, specially the girl. Poor old Rossano Brazzi, hard to believe he was once a romantic lead (watch "Mondo Cane" to see him running away from women). Looking here like a second-tier Ben Gazzara, he's given next to nothing to do. It's all Joe Don's show, unfortunately. And all of it scored to generic 80's "action movie" music that couldn't be more boring.<br /><br />Greydon Clark can make good B-Movies ("Without Warning"), but here he trips, falls, breaks his nose and loses three teeth. Well, at least the Malta locations were nice, and there's Venantini to try to save the day. 3/10. | 0neg
|
Human pot roast Joe Don Baker (MITCHELL) stars in this dull, unremarkable `action' movie as Deputy Geronimo, a fat, gassy slob who sits around in a stupid looking cowboy suit, listening to country music and eating too many donuts. Meanwhile, a vaguely criminal guy named Palermo (played by the guy who owned the drill in Fulci's GATES OF HELL) stumbles into Joe Don's territory and shoots the sheriff in a poorly edited scene. Joe Don- slowly- gives chase and offs Palermo's brother after uttering his now legendary catch phrase `It's your move. Think you can take me? Well, go ahead on'. For some reason Joe Don, a Texas lawman, must transport Palermo to Italy (`Mr. Palermo's been a major source of embarrassment to the Italian government,' says Mr. Wilson, another vague character played by Bill McKinney, who was in MASTER NINJA 1, SHE FREAK, and a lot of good Clint Eastwood movies). <br /><br />Anyhoo, Joe Don's plane must land on the island of Malta, where Palermo escapes with the help of a briefcase and a guy who looks like Jon Lovitz. And that's where the movie grinds to a halt. For the rest of the movie, Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. Then Joe Don keeps looking for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. Then Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. This is one aggravating movie.<br /><br />At one point Joe Don is thought to be dead at sea. All the other characters wonder if he's dead or not, finally concluding that he is. But then he shows up (he was rescued by a poor family) and no one mentions the fact that he was missing at sea for several days. Even his cute, Julia Louise-Dreyfuss-esque sidekick doesn't welcome him back. She does, however, offer to help him find Palermo, so Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more.<br /><br />Highpoints include, a bizarre carnival with strange colorful floats, some sexy strippers, a shoot out involving a kid dressed like Napoleon AND a cart of tomatoes, a chase scene involving a guy dressed like a monk, and any scene without Joe Don. Lowpoints include Joe Don threatening a stripper with a coat hanger.<br /><br />It should be noted that this is from Greydon Clark, director of ANGEL'S REVENGE, who appears as the sheriff. Ick!<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
If you ever hear these three words uttered to you..."Joe Don Baker", be afraid...<br /><br />Final Justice is the low budget action movie based on a sheriff in a Texas town named Geronimo (pronounced as Heronimo). He's an ugly, slimy, rude character who is on the hunt for a criminal in Malta who killed his partner in Texas. His partner actually slumps down twice in the movie. Very bad editing. Joe Don Baker (Geronimo) ends up in jail like 4 or 5 times in this movie, making the plot go nowhere fast. Plus, he shoots everybody like he's in the wild west. I guess nobody told him it was the 20th century. A woman cop is assigned to show him around Malta (who looks like Elaine from Seinfeld) and she is the only one who can put up with the redneck. She must be insane!<br /><br />The strippers in the bar are the most entertaining characters in this movie. Their dancing is shown throughout the film and I began to bond with the sleazy women. Well, at least it was better than watching Geronimo try to dumb his way out of something. The ending is flawed and somewhat predictable, and I was happy it was finally over. You'll never forget that last line of Joe Don Baker from the movie.<br /><br />It's so hard to imagine how he was in THREE Bond movies...very weird! Anyway, if you're up for a laugh, then see this one on MST3K sometime. Also, I've heard his other bad movie (among many), "Mitchell" MST3K version is being released on DVD by Rhino. I can't wait to see that! | 0neg
|
Joe Don Baker is an alright to good actor in small roles here and there...he was alright in Goldeneye and made a pretty good Bond villan in The Living Daylights and has appeared in various other movies. One thing he can't do is carry a movie as the lead, which he is in this extremely bad revenge movie set in Malta. Joe Don's partner is killed so he kills the killer's brother and escorts the killer to Italy, but some guys cause the plane to set down in Malta and the killer gets away. The rest of the movie is seeing Joe Don chase the killer here and there, Joe Don getting taken into custody various times, Joe Don torturing a bartendar and being interrupted and so on. The movie is quite bad and you won't find yourself exactly pulling for Joe Don's character. You will be amazed at how many times Joe Don the hero gets taken out by one punch and how incompetent he proves to be. The crowning part of the movie comes when Joe Don chases the killer all over Malta with the killer in a priest robe and then they get in boats and he chases them all around Malta. This movie also features one of the worst closing lines to end a movie ever. | 0neg
|
Joe Don Baker is...Thomas Jefferson Geronimo, a pudgy, sweaty murderous oaf in a stupid cowboy suit that Roy Rogers would have laughed at. Somehow he still has a badge, probably because he lives in Texas and they'll let ANYTHING be law enforcement there.<br /><br />This greasy loser is a deputy sheriff near the Texas border. Not surprisingly, he was once a Texas Ranger but got kicked out because he seemed to think that the law was his own personal bouncing ball to be played with at his discretion. This includes shooting suspects who are over the international border into Mexico, beating up on suspects, cheating in gun fights, threatening women, starting gunfights that could have been avoided AND managing to get the life of a child threatened in the process, letting women he promised he would help and protect get killed just so that he could get out of jail, etc, etc. This guy makes L.A. cops look like saints in comparison.<br /><br />When his partner is killed by a pair of wandering Italian assassins, Joe Don's character hunts them down and kills one of them. Then he takes the other to Italy at the behest of a Mr. Wilson, who rightly thinks that Joe Don will screw up big time. In record time, he loses the Italian and gets a Maltese cabby blown up in the process. This is just the first of the many deaths and major destruction that Joe Don leaves in a trail behind him as he rampages across Malta looking for Palermo(the Italian assassin).<br /><br />Thus begins the mobius strip part of the movie, in which our hero gets arrested, lectured by the Maltese chief of police, goes out and causes more trouble, gets arrested, gets lectured by the chief of police...and so on, and so on. Until you want to blow your brains out with Joe Don's ivory handled pistol and be done with the horror.<br /><br />Joe Don proves his uselessness not just in the first time Palermo escapes, but in the subsequent boat chase in which he goes down in just one punch. Then he gets taken by Palermo after he threatens a woman with a coat hanger. You hope that Palermo will actually get to torture him in the basement cell he's put in, but no-the stripper he threatened came and got him out, because he promised to protect her. Her throat promptly gets cut(big surprise) and Joe Don escapes into the night.<br /><br />And here you hope he might have been drowned in the (yet another) boat chase. But even the ocean doesn't want him, and spits him up on a shore where he's nursed by a poor Maltese family(what did they ever do to deserve that?) he returns to the city, where he's arrested by the police, lectured by the police chief...arrrgghhh! The female police officer who's been escorting him around frees him so that they can go get Palermo. Why she would do anything so brain dead as to destroy her career for this great slob is beyond me. It's just head scratchily puzzling.<br /><br />They go out to the villa where Palermo is hiding, and start a shoot out. Joe Don blithely cheats, and kills Palermo. He then utters the great and dazzling last line of the movie: "The big one has my badge. Can you go get it for me?" Thank you for that immortal line, Mr. Baker. That will go down in the annals of movie history as the most literate, amazing, wondrous last line ever uttered by a character in a film. It certainly falls into line with everything else about the character. Bravo. | 0neg
|
Geez! This is one of those movies that you think you previously reviewed but you didn't. I mean, you didn't give a crap about it but somehow it came to your mind.<br /><br />To be honest and brief; this is one of the worst, boring, and stupid slashers ever made. I can't say anything good about this piece of crap because there are barely decent sequences that could tell it's made by professional film makers.<br /><br />The death scenes are horrible, bloodless, stupid. The plot is somehow good taking in account that it copied "Popcorn" from 1991.<br /><br />To make things even worse, this isn't a movie so bad that it's good. It's just plain bad.<br /><br />Molly Ringwald tried to do her best but it wasn't enough. | 0neg
|
Cut tries to be like most post-Scream slashers tried to be, a spoof of the horror genre that tried to be clever by referencing other famous horror movies. Now, I am not bagging 'Scream,' as I think 'Scream' is a very good horror movie that does a great job of blending horror and comedy. Cut fails on most levels. It has its moments but overall it just does not work out, not even as a "so bad it's good" movie, just a below average one.<br /><br />The first five minutes or so are OK and set the story fairly well, apart from the fact that Kylie Minogue can't really act, and ironically she gets her tongue out, go figure. Go forward some time and a group of film students want to finish her film off, which is apparently cursed. And, as you have probably predicted, one by one the cast and crew are slowly picked off by a masked madman.<br /><br />Unoriginal plot, poor acting and a predictable ending are a few of the elements that follow. There is plenty of referencing in the film, everything from 'Scream' to 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.' This isn't smart either, it feels as though the director wanted to feel smart and cool by mentioning other famous horror flicks ala Scream. For a slasher there is minimal gore and no nudity, which is a huge negative when it comes to a slasher that has not got a whole lot going for it. Really, I should be supporting this movie because I'm Australian and we're not as good when it comes to horror (we do have our gems, though) but Cut is definitely not one of them.<br /><br />However, it did keep me watching for the 90 minutes or so, so that is something good at least. I would not recommend this to anyone apart from hardcore slasher fans, who may be able to appreciate what this film is trying to aim for, but if you are looking for a good movie, stay away.<br /><br />2/5 | 0neg
|
It seems like more consideration has gone into the IMDb reviews of this film than went into the source.<br /><br />Here's a review without pretensions:<br /><br />Just when you think nothing is going to happen, it doesn't.<br /><br />Dress it up any way you like, this is a dull film, full of unengaging characters doing very little of interest.<br /><br />One to put on if you want to convince an impressionable emo chick that you're like, so deep, man.<br /><br />Not something to watch for your own pleasure though.<br /><br />Unless.<br /><br />You're.<br /><br />Pretentious. | 0neg
|
I opted to see the film at the recent Dubai Film Festival because it had been selected to the Cannes film festival's prestigious Competition section. I was surprised that Cannes could be so off the mark in judging quality.<br /><br />The film, some reviewers, have noted does not have too much of gunfire--but the inherent violence is repulsive. Imagine killing your enemy/competitor in front of your young son..or forcing someone to eat a porcelain spoon to prove loyalty. There are some hints of the contrasting Corleone sons in Copolla's "Godfather" that seem to resurface here in this Chinese/Hong Kong film but the quality of the two are as distinctly different as chalk and cheese.<br /><br />This film is only recommended for violence junkies..there is no great cinema here. At best it might be considered to be better than the usual Run Run Shaw production for production values. | 0neg
|
Frank Sinatra was far from the ideal actor for westerns. He was a great actor, From Here to Eternity and The Man with The Golden arm are a proof of that, but he did not have the physique of a western hero, you identified him as an urban guy. But he tried to do his job well in Johnny Concho, the fact that the film was a failure at the box office was not his fault. I blame it on two factors: a) the story was too unusual, specially in the fact that Sinatra behaves more like a villain than as a hero throughout the movie. In a genre where people kind of expected a certain pattern, to break away from it the film has to be very good. b) the story is not convincing, it is hard to believe that a whole town will allow Sinatra to do anything he wants just because they are afraid of his brother. Also when a man shows him a special holster that will open sideways so he has not to draw the gun you wonder that if that will make him invincible, why all the gunfighters have not adopted it? I think that this film should not have been withdrawn, because any film with Sinatra is worth seeing, and in spite of its shortcomings it is still enjoyable | 0neg
|
Someone here actually compared this movie in some ways to High Noon. Now that is a real stretch! I'm a big Sinatra fan including some of his acting roles but maybe the only person who could have played this part would have been Don Knotts. First off, as someone pointed out, Sinatra just doesn't have the build for a Western bad-guy wannabe. He's just too 'slight' at this point in his life. Maybe he was about the same height as say Audie Murphy, but Murphy had a pretty solid build. Sinatra comes across as the big talking little kid who nobody ought to take seriously.<br /><br />The story is uninspired and really not credible. I don't want to spoil it but I think the ending and how the townspeople react in this story doesn't make any sense. Another thing, these people constantly allow themselves to be completely lorded over by some 'bad guy'. This is just a little town, so I don't get the attraction nor do I understand why the people would let themselves be dominated that way.<br /><br />There is a 'love interest' in the story and if I followed it right, she was upset when the main character refused to admit who he was so some other bad guy wouldn't kill him. Now there's true love for you. 'Stand up for yourself! Tell him your name so he will kill you!' LOL. Stop, you're killing me.<br /><br />Unfortunately the basic premise of the movie isn't good enough and no matter how they tried this story didn't have a logical path to follow other than into the wastebasket. Want to know why it's not on video and never shown on TV? The critics apparently panned it in 1956 and they were right - this movie is pretty bad. I would almost bet Sinatra paid someone to deep six the thing as much as possible.<br /><br />You want to see a good Western where a town stands up against a bad guy? Try Tension at Table Rock, or At Gunpoint - two really, really good Westerns with that theme. Johnny Concho is Johnny Stinko. Frank, you were the greatest singer ever - but you didn't belong in a movie like this. | 0neg
|
Mercifully, there's no video of this wannabe western that a stay-afloat vehicle for Big Frank at a time when his career was floundering. The story of a weasel who lives on the reputation of his big gun brother and who gets run out of town by bad guys only to return to rally his townfolks with a new found courage must have been written by a back-room writer. All in all, this show stinks. The story is basically boring, ill-conceived and so naive that it can offend your intelligence. I must depart complete from the other reviewer who found it "...underrated..." The critics slammed it at the time and deservedly so. You'll have to catch it on the last show, if you up late and having a bout of insomnia. But, if you can sit through it, you've more fortitude than most of my movie buff friends. | 0neg
|
I checked this movie out when it still had 6 votes and it said like 7.2 or something, but seriously this is a horrible movie. Lets break it down. The first thing you notice about this movie is that it was filmed on a hand-held digital camera owned by a freshman at a community college. the next thing you'll notice is that the actors, are all friends of said freshman (he probably met them at the pub the night before. Third on the list you will notice that the musical editing is horrible, and they try to cram many songs into this movie, at 30 second intervals... also all digital editing is done on said freshman's home PC... probably using windows movie maker. This movie was horrible... pretentious, had an undeniably bad script, and acting that followed suit. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone I know, but I do sentence the writer and director to watch this movie in hell for an eternity. | 0neg
|
This is easily one of the worst 5 movies I've ever seen. It's not scary or any of the other things suggested in the plot outline. This movie is agonizingly slow and I was bored for almost all 98 minutes. While the acting is mediocre at best, the biggest problem is the script, which is poorly written, slow and plodding with no real direction. Occasionally an eerie mood is set only to be broken by some useless line or event. I'm not surprised that the entire cast was sick and throwing up between shots, they did after all have to try and digest a terrible script. As a huge fan of good horror movies, I'm always irritated that something this bad gets made. Save yourself 98 minutes you'll never get back. | 0neg
|
This film on paper looked like it could possibly be good, after watching though i realised that this film was completely terrible!! The plot has no meaning, and i think i counted the best part of 5000 cut scenes each one making the film more annoying boring and ridiculous. I watched this late night pitch black no noise at all just to add to the SCARINESS of it but the truth is the only thing that scared me was the music, what they would call tragic music, they play opera i mean be serious!! This film sums up all of what is not good about this type of film. To be honest ill say no more but watch at your own risk this film is just complete rubbish, ENJOY!! | 0neg
|
When the young Kevin gets the boat of his dead uncle as a gift, he invites five friends of him to a trip to Catalina Island for the weekend. While in the journey, they drink booze, have sex and play games, with each one of them telling his or her greatest fear. Later Kevin drowns in the open sea, the engine stops, and they are haunted and murdered by their greatest innermost fear.<br /><br />Yesterday, my wife, son, daughter and three other friends joined to watch "Haunted Boat" on DVD. With less than 30 minutes running time, the group gave up watching this messy and boring amateurish piece of crap, and we decided to see another film. Later, I decided to watch the rest of this flick to see how bad it could be and it would have been better off going to bed to sleep. The confused story has an awful cinematography and camera work, with a cast that is probably studying to be actors and actresses and in the end this film seems to be a bad project of cinema school. The terrible and pretentious screenplay shows a ridiculous twist in the end, actually a complete mess that made me not understand what the story is all about. Was the girl insane and traveled alone in the boat, imagining the whole situation with imaginary friends? If that is true, are their friend again in the very end fruit of her madness? My vote is one.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Viagem Para a Morte" ("Trip to the Death") | 0neg
|
This is by far the worst movie I've ever seen. From the plot, though the shots, the "special effects", the acting, and did I mentioned the plot? Every single thing in it sucked ass!<br /><br />This is a good example of what "over-doing" means and I'll try to explain:<br /><br />I understand what the creator of this movie was trying to do; this was supposed to be one of those movies you can't really tell what the hell is going on up until the end. You sit mesmerized, not knowing who's dead and who's alive and who killed who and why and just when you think you got the timeline right you find out you're wrong and the movie ends - leaving you with an opened mouth for the next 5 minutes! Something like "Unbreakable" or "The Job" if you know what I mean.<br /><br />But Olga Levens, the writer of this junk, yes, Olga The writer, Director, Producer, Screenplay author, Caster, Production designer, Art Director, Costume Designer and also a double for one of the characters is some scenes... this is basically a one woman movie and when it comes to Olga Levens from "Levens Productions" you can't go wrong :-)<br /><br />Well this might come as a shocker but "this time" Olga over did this big time, jumping from scene to scene, from dreams to reality... but wait! this was all a dream after all... or was it??? The picture fades and I realized none of this ever happened, the girl was all alone on the ship... actually there was no ship... no wait! There's the ship again, and the guys! They're alive! Thank god! No they're calling her to join the cruise... but then the ship disappears so maybe they're dead after all??? or maybe they never were alive to begin with???<br /><br />If you understood what I just said you might like this movie - otherwise it's a boring piece of work and the only reason I set through this entire crap is to find out how the hell can they finish this movie...<br /><br />Don't watch this if you value time, ever 90 minutes are a waste in this case... | 0neg
|
I watched this movie last night and hoped for the best after watching all the cool trailers.Even the cover of the DVD looked good.As soon as I started watching it I was thinking like others "oh my God whats this".There were some moments that were a bit creepy but then the mood was ruined by stupid music.There was rock and opera during what is supposed to be suspenseful scenes.That right there ruined it for me and i was shaking my head thinking damn I wasted money again on a rental and was deceived by the cover art.Nothing against the music itself,it was just in the wrong parts of the movie.Whoever edited the film has no clue what they are doing.The cover showed lightning, implying they were caught in a storm at sea.That would have been more interesting but it didn't happen. The acting wasn't the worst i've ever seen considering they are all unknown and this is obvious their first film.Another reason I was disappointed was the plot made no sense.In the beginning 2 men saw all of the teens get on a boat,then at the end supposedly only 1 girl existed and the others were either her imaginary friends or were ghosts i'm not sure because it was very badly portrayed. WhyteFox who wrote a comment on here claims this is a true story.He or she believes in ghosts and spirits and says there is a haunted boat in the area this movie was filmed.There was no mention in this movie about it being a true story.I have never experienced something like that personally but am not saying it's impossible.I guess if anyone is interested in renting this movie,do it at your own risk.If you like amateur student horror films you may like this. | 0neg
|
I rented this film purely on the fact that the cover appealed to me. However as soon as the film began I had regrets. It seems they used a home video camera to shoot this film and let a young child do it. They also used inappropriate ghostly faces and shapes to try and scare people but i found myself laughing, i could have put that together myself and done a better job of it.<br /><br />As for the plot I felt that it had some really good ideas but because of dodgy lines and in some cases acting they were overshadowed. It had no direction.<br /><br />I didn't want to sit through it all because it caused me physical pain to watch it but i always finish what i start so i took a deep breath and let it carry on. Definitely 98minutes of my life wasted.<br /><br />I would save yourself the embarrassment of knowing that you have watched 'Haunted Boat' and find something that is more entertaining. I'm a fan of low budget horror films but this was a major disappointment i thought nothing could get worse after 'Terror Toons' but this made me reconsider. A let down to its genre.<br /><br />* out of ***** (The star is for the ideas of having their worst fears coming for them) | 0neg
|
What the heck was this. Somebody obviously read Stephen King and Sartre in the same semester. We get existential angst mixed in with cheap horror. There were moments that were disturbing but each one was canceled out by horrible music, CGI, or acting.<br /><br />The problem with weird narratives like this is that it feels lazy. Even David Lynch's work feels like that at times, and just like his interesting shows and movies it runs far far too long. And sadly this is only 98 minutes.<br /><br />The cast was attractive, and that is about the limit to this. I suppose it touches on feelings of adolescents and the fear of loneliness we all have, but just doesn't make the characters likable enough for us to care about their fates...whatever they were. The final scene leaves the whole thing ambiguous. | 0neg
|
do not ever watch this film...it is the biggest pile of sh*te i have ever come across in my whole life. and thats saying something. the acting, storyline and filming were absolutely dire this is THE WORST FILM IN THE WORLD!!! seriously doesn't it even give you a hit seeing as it cost my 99p from sainsburys and it was only made in 2005? hahaha this film is like a cheap college movie you can even see the camera in the corner of the screen....although if u really wanna watch it you gotta watch the "scary shark scene"...possibly the best piece of acting i have seen in my life...ha ha. i mean seriously this is the biggest waste of 2 1/2 hours EVER!! | 0neg
|
*****probably minor spoilers******<br /><br />I cant say i liked it, but i cant say i didn't...its very strange. It has bad things in it like for example a shark that came out of nowhere with the worst CGI you can imagine,if i was the director i would cut that part for sure, gave me the urge to stop seeing the rest of the movie... For some people it will be boring cause it lacks action, feels home made sometimes... Take for example a scene that one of the friends died and next thing they are doing is what? nop,not crying...their telling horror stories to each other..*sighs*(just after crying for hes lost)<br /><br />Another stupid thing was when they were talking inside the boat they had like "hundreds" of candles in the table in front of them...the boat is surrounded by some kind of rag curtains(old rags covering the windows) and sofas/Couches ...i thought it was dumb, using candles but not thinking about the surroundings, besides being in high sea alone...<br /><br />The good, some scary scenes they are nicely done i liked some. Sometimes horror works better when its hidden when its behind something instead of showing of, so this movie does it good, maybe because its a low budget i don't know, but it works fine for me! You will feel tension if you forget some holes like the ones i mentioned above.<br /><br />Do not expect much of it! but if you like anykind of movie watch this one, be patient, try to enjoy.. lol<br /><br />(sorry about my raw English) =)<br /><br />Cheers | 0neg
|
Haunted Boat sells itself as 'The Fog' meets 'Open Water'. In many ways this is accurate. There are scares and weird looking people to keep you interested.<br /><br />However the acting ability is poor at best. Showing clear signs that this is merely a bunch of friends making a horror film. Which in all credit they do to the best of their ability. When you accept the low budget makes it very difficult for special effects, with the ghosts looking pretty much like men with rubber masks on.<br /><br />Many aspects of the film are creepy and strange. But it suffers for using too many twists and turns in a short space of time which just leaves you bored and confused. In terms of keeping you awake the film does it very well. Ignoring the irrelevant twisting every 5 seconds near the end, you actually want to know what is going on. And are willing to wait the 1hr 35 minutes for the climax.<br /><br />This is no Ghost Ship but it'll definitely do for an evening in front of the T.V. | 0neg
|
I saw this film yesterday. I must admit, it weren't my cup of tea. Although it's supposed to be a horror movie of its kind. But as I was watching this, I was thinking.. 'This movie isn't making any sense at all..' Where on earth did this guy in the dark coat came from? Where were the two guys were going when they left the girls behind? Where on earth did a shark came out from?<br /><br />All these elements in this film somehow didn't add up. I felt as if these filmmakers wasted so much time and money on a film that was so bound to be so crap.<br /><br />I've seen many good horror movies in my time, but this is one of the most worst horror flicks I've seen. At the end of the movie, I said to myself that I wouldn't watch it again.. So much pappy show in this film, I've decided to give it the thumbs down! Count me out on this one! 0 out of 10! | 0neg
|
A girl is showering unknowing that a serial rapist is staring at her through the skylight. Detectives Martin Manners and Orville Stone is hot on his trail, but not hot enough as they find him after he kills, rapes, and eats a nipple of the girl.He's the shot to death. One would hope that this would be the end of the film. Not because it's too horrifying, but because the level of acting is atrociously horrid. Sadly it's not the end and months later the rapist is resurrected as a zombie by a coven of satanists. So he continues where he left off, with the detectives on the case again, this time a flying baby is after him too (don't ask). There has been VERY good VERY low-budget movies (Street Trash and Filthy McNasty spring to mind), but this one is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Horrible acting, crappy dime store special effects, lame attempt at comedy and oh yeah, and the ending sucks too.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Eye Candy: Theresa Bestul gets fully nude; Anne R. Key gets topless | 0neg
|
I ordered this extremely rare and highly overrated movie on ebay with very high expectations. I think I paid about 50$ for this movie. As an eternal fan of horror, from cheesy 80s American slashers to European zombie films, I told myself this was going to be great! I can't tell you how wrong I was. First of all, I thought it was gonna be pretty much gorier than it actually is. After all I've had heard about this film, I was almost scared to watch it. The murders are boring. The acting... forget it, there's no acting! The story, even if we don't care, is incredibly bad. It seems they tried to get your attention with some weird sexual scenes and naked girls, but unfortunately in this case it doesn't help the movie. Why? There's no atmosphere, and this is the worst thing about this flick. It's just bad film-making from point A to B. Though it's extremely funny and amusing to watch with your friends and a lot of beers, don't make any effort to get your hands on it. There are so many movies in this world, don't waste your time watching Necro Files! | 0neg
|
I am a huge horror/splatter fan, I even enjoy horror films some people consider as stupid. I also like gore. The more the merrier as long as it has a point.<br /><br />After reading the other people's reviews on the site I was sure this film was going to be a little gem. But much to my disappointment it proved to be one of the most pointless films I've ever watched.<br /><br />The acting was terrible, the dialogs were stupid, the plot was pointless, the special effects were useless and the editing was probably done by someone who has been dead for the past 2 years. Usually i find that all these characteristics make a great b horror movie . But not in this case.<br /><br />I waisted 11 EUR to get this DVD. <br /><br />Unless you actually enjoy pointless gore ( for example the "violent sh*t" films) avoid at any cost! | 0neg
|
It is such a strange movie, you can call it awful or if you sit with friends it can give you a killer laugh-athon. Strange comes to mind again and again. Shot amateurishly, acted even worse and the directions, maybe none. The special effects are funny but the music accompanying a flying demon baby will surely be the biggest hit. See it if you got time to kill. But don't, don't even try to take it seriously. Supposed to be a tribute to 'Porno holocaust ',. Since I haven't seen it, from the tribute I can assume it to be as bad. Should have given it 1/10, but it did give me a good laugh or two, so it gets a 3. Excessive gore, the only thing somebody worked on. Stay away if you are squeamish, more gore than laughs. Wonder if the makers had a laugh making it? | 0neg
|
A killer, cannibal rapist is killed by a crazed cop on the scene of his latest murder. At his grave a cult have gathered with plans to resurrect him by peeing onto the grave. This of course works and he awakes ripping the guys penis off and he is back into his old killing ways with an all new zombie look. The two cops one of who is going a little crazy about the scum of the city and has a drug problem, are back on the case. Two of the original cult member also tries to stop the killer by resurrecting some other kind of dead thing. Thinking they have filed they leave but out from the grave comes a plastic baby doll that was used in the original resurrection. Sounds a bit confusing really but no its just rubbish.<br /><br />The acting is terrible and one of the cops is the same guy that plays Dr Vincent van Gore in the faces of gore series and he is just as terrible as the annoying cop in this film. The other cop just about struggles to get his terrible lines out. Now I'm all for low budget cinema but this film is just terrible. If it wasn't for the very easy on the eye ladies and their nakedness I would probably have fallen asleep. There is a bit of gore but it's never more than some animal guts placed on the stomach of the victims. The zombie makeup on the other hand looks great and his foot long penis that he uses to rape his victims with is kind of funny at times. There is also a half decent scene where the killer falls in love with a sex doll. The doll with the chipmunks voice is the stupidest thing I have ever seen in a film. It is just a plastic toy on a fishing line.<br /><br />The ending is extremely bad. You would expect the killer to put up much more of a fight than he does. God knows how they made enough money to make a sequel. <br /><br />4/10 | 0neg
|
This is not as funny and gory as the DVD box claims. I really love twisted and wierd movies, but this one is really just dull! It's one hour of ripped off penises, flying Baby Born dolls and a lot of rape! I think the intention with this amateur sleaze, was to make a It's-so-bad-it's-good movies, but it fails. It's just bad! A few scenes are ok, but in whole it's a mess. If you like amateur splatter like this one (Only way better) I would recommend Andreas Schnass' Violent Shit 2 and 3. | 0neg
|
A bloody maniac with cannibalistic tendencies rapes a woman. He's been shot by two policemen and then he is risen from the grave because of some sort of satanic ceremonial rite preformed by an evil heresy. The hunting of women continues by this zombie-demon. The sacrificed baby returns from the grave and wants the maniac dead again, but only with the help of the police this will come true...<br /><br />A bloody 65-minute mess...Horny zombies, doll-babies, S&M, corrupted and twisted policemen, repented heretics who seek refuge in front of Jesus Christ and three text-screens at the end of the film explaining us what finally happened to the policeman who survived (yes, we ought to know!)... Two decent disemboweling shots can't save the situation. I've seen worst horror-flicks, but this one was pretty bad too. Recommended only for the die-very-hard fans of the genre. | 0neg
|
i got a copy from the writer of this movie on soulseek. I have to say it is pathetic and just plain painful to watch the two cops act, but i watched the movie as a joke and since it is a homage to august's underground which i happened to have seen it is in my book as an awesome movie. Its quality and everything about it is pretty bad but its entertaining and something to talk about amongst your friends. Reminds me of troma but good stuff. I recommend seeing this under two conditions, if you are bored and need a good laugh, or high, otherwise just let it be. Recommended download for sure. o and the killings are pretty funny. like when the zombie rips the Satan worshipers dick off and stabs someone in the head with it. | 0neg
|
Well, if it weren't for Ethel Waters and a 7-year-old Sammy Davis, Jr. (here billed without the Jr.), Rufus Jones for President would be one of the worst representations of African-American stereotypes I've seen from the early talkie era and wouldn't have been worth seeing because of that. Ms. Waters is excellent here singing "Am I Blue?" and "Underneath Our Harlem Moon" while Mr. Davis shows us how his childhood experience in showbiz prepared him for his superstar status as an adult. He's so good tap-dancing here that for awhile I thought he was a little person with decades of experience. So if you're willing to ignore the negative connotations here, Rufus Jones for President should provide some good enjoyment. P.S. This marks the fourth time today I've seen and heard the song, "I'll Be Glad When You're Dead You Rascal You" performed on film, this time by Davis. Must have been a very popular song about this time. | 0neg
|
This must have been an embarrassment to every member of the entirely African-American cast. Every derogatory, disparaging stereotype of the black American community is featured prominently. I won't reinforce the insults by listing them here, except to mention chickens, watermelons, and dice.<br /><br />One good song by Ethel Waters (and a couple of bad ones), and the fantastic singing and dancing talents of 8-year-old Sammy Davis bring the total up to something below 1 on the IMDb scale. | 0neg
|
Being a fan of the manga and anime of Go Nagai (DEVIL MAN, DEVIL LADY, VIOLENCE JACK, etc.), I was looking forward to this one. I'd seen neither the manga nor the anime, so I had no preconceived notions going in. Good thing, too. What we have here is a series of silly softcore movies of the type that used to turn up with alarming regularity on cable channels late at night. While it's tame compared to what gets rammed down the throats of regular cable viewers (our hero's naughty bits are either tastefully tucked away behind a strategically glued-on scarf or emblazoned with a ridiculous sunburst effect), there are prolonged scenes of bondage and torture that lend the proceedings just enough smarminess to make it unsuitable for the kiddies. While I have nothing whatsoever against nude female heroes, I do dislike amateurishly made movies (there are at least four in this series). On the plus side, there's at least one stunningly beautiful actress in each of the four episodes I saw. It's no wonder Nagai's TESTICLE BOY never made it... | 0neg
|
I'm going to spend as much time on this review as the writers did on the script. This is easily THE WORST sequel EVER made.<br /><br />They KILLED Navin Johnson. Not only was Mark Blankfield's performance GOD-AWFUL, so was everyone elses!! The physical comedy was forced, flat and predictable. The script seemed to have been written by mongoloid monkeys using the pen names Ziggy Steinberg and Rocco Urbisci. How the producers managed to squeeze out such vile cinematic excrement is beyond me. They even managed to make veteran actor Ray Walston look like a talent-less buffoon. Director Michael Schultz should be ashamed of himself.<br /><br />I want the 96 minutes of my life I spent watching this befouled memory of a brilliant comedy back so I can try and convict everyone involved for this cinematic atrocity. | 0neg
|
You can never have seen either film and still know that The Jerk Too is a disaster. The question is not, "How did it get made," because if you throw money at anyone and tell them to make a film, they will do so.<br /><br />No. The question is "Why, oh why, did Steve Martin allow it to be made?" I think he needed the money to fight a nuisance lawsuit and was determined it not cost him anything. He knew the sequel was going to be so frightful, that out of pride, he wouldn't even count it's royalties as income. <br /><br />The only way this sequel could not be an embarrassment is to have had Carl Gottlieb and Steve Martin revive the nation's favorite poor black family.<br /><br />And "dcreasy2001" (aka Mark Blankfield?): It's just transparently obvious that you worked on this film in some sad capacity, and the only way you can feel better about your involvement is to be the sequel's lone cheerleader as an IMDb user comment. I was praying for you to veer over into satire, but alas, you were really making an effort at spin. Why not 10 stars? | 0neg
|
This is a typical 70's soft core sex romp in the Russ Meyer genre, though perhaps less outlandish than some of Meyer's work. This film has higher 'production values' than many of it's contemporaries, suggesting a larger budget. It's plot, writing and acting are straight out the B zone, though. Of late, this film has become a mainstay of B movie channels (such as "Drive In Classics") in the 500 channel universe. If soft core is what you are in the mood for, this is as "good" as anything else in the B range. Don't expect Polanski though, Sarno is just Sarno. Nothing more, nothing less. Jennifer Welles performance as the "mother" is perhaps the best of the cast. None of the actors in the film went on to greater fame, unsurprisingly. Confessions of a Young American Housewife is far from the worst example of it's kind. It is watchable, if this is your type of film. 30 years ago, this would have been an avant garde and riske film. You can see more or less the same kind of thing on Showtime/HBO series these days, and in prime time. | 0neg
|
Oh dear, Oh dear. I started watching this not knowing what to expect. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. There were times when I thought it was a comedy. I loved how the government's plan to capture the terrorist leader is to air drop in one man, who is unarmed, and expect him to capture him and escape with a rocket pack. If only it were really that easy. I've finally found a movie worse than "Plan 9 From Outer Space". | 0neg
|
STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits <br /><br />Some plutonium's gone missing and some very nasty people now have the means to develop a bomb capable of wholesale destruction- so Josh McCord (Chuck Norris) and his cocky young protégé Deke (Judson Mills, a different actor from the previous film) with the assistance of Josh's adopted daughter Que (Jennifer Tung) set out to stop them.<br /><br />This was another film that dealt with terrorism a year after the events of 9/11. Filmed in 2001, Norris himself even commented afterwards how eerily the plot line to the film resembled what happened in downtown New York that day, so there'd have been those that would have been in the mood for a film where Norris and his side-kick kick some terrorist ass if nothing else. Other than that, it's as interchangeable as anything Norris has ever been in. It makes you wonder what the original did to warrant a sequel in the first place, and whether if this one could get made a President's Man 3 might come out sometime soon.<br /><br />If you've seen one Norris film, you've really seen them all and there's really nothing new or unexpected that happens with this one, but at least you know what you're getting and, like I said, it might have been just what some needed to let off some steam. ** | 0neg
|
I saw this movie the first time at about twelve o'clock on a Saturday evening. It really is the perfect time for this one. I have never, EVER seen a movie that was actually more predictable and drenched with stereotypes. If you want to see a thrilling action movie, don't watch it because you might lose the will to live halfway through. However, if you want a good laugh, please watch it! I even bought the Chuck Norris 3DVD collection thanks to my enjoyable Saturday night. What especially struck me is that évery scene that would be expensive to make was copy-pasted from a Discovery documentary or an old TV-special on the US Army. Furthermore I was amazed by the fact that they didn't put the slightest effort in making the production look real. Afghanistan is, as far as I can remember, nowhere near any sea and yet with a single click Deke escapes from the terrorists sand-castle with his jet-pack and is taken away by a submarine (probably Discovery). Later on in the movie, Deke throws an Islam terrorist against the wall. In the slow motion scene you can beautifully see the long hairs of the Korean stuntman flap in the air when smashed against the wall. Gotta love it. I recommend you watch it with some friends and a good amount of beer though, only then you'll understand why I've been mad enough to spend 6,99 euro's on the box. | 0neg
|
OK, so, Chuck Norris somehow found a way to get this sequel produced. I have one question-why? Who read this script and said, "Sound's great! Original!" This movie is regurgitated crap that I wouldn't tarnish my toilet bowel with. Of course it is another story, following in the tradition of MIA, Invasion USA, Walker, Texas Ranger, Delta Force and so on in which Chuck Norris, of course, is the one man who can same America from some bad guys. He doesn't even need a gun most times. It's stupid patriotic jargon that stales the mind. Big surprise that the only one who will direct these Norris film's is Chuck's son Eric. Eric Norris has primarily worked on all his father's films and TV shows. Doesn't this strike anyone as a sign that he has no directing talent? Afterall, he's directing the same people as before in the same stories as before...only difference is the characters' names. If this is supposed to make me patriotic and cheer for the USA, than our country is in much worse shape than I ever imagined. Hopefully, this will be the nail in Chuck Norris's acting coffin. | 0neg
|
***THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILER(S)*** <br /><br />I'm not a big fan of Chuck Norris as an actor, but I worship him in all other ways. He also have his own fan web site with "Chuck Norris facts" that is really entertaining. But this movie looks like someone was joking with the audience putting all those "facts" into one movie. I really don't remember when I wasted my time more than with this "action". I don't know what's the worst this movie can offer you: unoriginal and thousand-times-made plot of terrorists who are trying to nuke US by smuggling nuke on US soil or perhaps that "great" dialogs and Chucks words of wisdom about life and everything else. Someone may find the worst that terrorists actually speak English in everyday life. It's a never ending list of crap. Not to mention huge amount of archive footage used in film, that is kinda annoying. The chief terrorist send his comrades message through the media when he is captured and the only guy smart enough to see the treat is: Chuck Norris, of course. NO ONE else in America is not smart enough to see that! And the whole action in capturing chief is just ridiculous. One man is sent to walk through a whole terrorist camp UNARMED (I'm lying, he had a KNIFE), escapes his stalkers with JET PACK and then para glides for few hundred, maybe even thousand kilometers to nearest shore (Afganistan border is 450 km far away from nearest shore), where he is rescued by submarine. I hoped that at least fighting scenes will be good, but that's even more funny than the plot. If you didn't know, 85% of terrorist are masters of some martial art, but Chuck and CO beat the sh*t out of them. Not only they kill them easily, they can kick and throw them away by a single move and the bad guys fly few meters like dolls. You may ask me did I watch this movie to the end? I did. Why? Because I just wanted to see who, of these two super heroes, will defuse the nuclear bomb of few hundred megatons and size of a MICROWAVE. And then I realized what fool I am. Of course, it's Chuck's movie after all. And not only he singlehandedly defuse nuke with tweezers, but he do it - TWICE!! I could write a book about all the stupid things in this movie, but I would spend my life spawn.<br /><br />So, makers of this movie made another Chuck Norris fact to be added on his web site: Can Chuck Norris defuse nuclear bomb? Yes and he can do it twice! | 0neg
|
Wow, my first review of this movie was so negative that it was not excepted. I will try to tone this one down. Lets be real!!! No one wants to see a Chuck Norris movie where HE is not the main character.There was a good fight scene at the end, but the rest of the movie stank. I have to wonder if old Chuck just can't hang with the best any more. Has he slowed down so much that he has to turn out junk like this and hope that his reputation will carry him through the entire movie? Chuck is an awesome martial artist, and as we have seen from Walker, Texas Ranger, a fairly good actor, but the trick is to combine both of these qualities in his movies, and this one does not. Very Disappointing for us Norris fans. Chuck, stay as the main character in your movies, because this does not work for you...Gary | 0neg
|
Too bad Chuck Norris has gone to TV. He made some good movies before he hit TV. This is a typical TV movie intended to pass the time. Unfortunately it wastes Chuck's talent as an actor. I hope he returns to the big screen some day. | 0neg
|
In the standard view, this is a purely awful movie. However, it rates a near perfect score on the unintentional comedy scale. I can think of few actual comedies that make me laugh as hard as I did watching this movie. Andy Griffith's ghost dressed in Native American garb dancing sends me into hysterics everytime. I wouldn't waste the gas or energy driving to the video store to rent it, but if you happen to be laying on the couch at 3 in the morning and it comes on TV, check it out. | 0neg
|
This is just horrible, really horrible trash. Yes, we've got beautiful naked women dancing and having sex. But while this may work in the mechanism of a porn movie may have even been a hit as a porn movie this tries to mask itself as a "film" with actual things to say, with real emotion and struggle. It isn't. It's an excuse to get some girls naked and have a fun time. I'm sure all of these women (and men) in this particular movie could have faired decently in the porn movie business of the 1970s . . . but not in the actual movie business.<br /><br />The acting was hackneyed, so bad, I mean real terrible. The writing was even worse. I can't lay all blame on these actors they had nothing to work with. The very broad structure or plot of the movie could possibly be done and done well with good writers and competent actors. The very broad structure or plot is that of a psychotic man who spends his time shooting people from afar, as a sniper. These shootings were motivated from men not respecting their women enough. If there was more writing - better writing, much better writing - and less gratuitous sexual imagery we might have something to work with.<br /><br />This movie should have been shot, made and marketed a hardcore porn movie all along; it would have made more money. It practically is a hardcore porn film already, and it remains the only non-porn movie I've seen that shows a male erect penis. | 0neg
|
1st watched 12/26/2008 -(Dir-Eugene Levy): Corny comedy murder mystery with very few laughs. The movie appears to be based on an earlier Italian movie according to the credits but was re-written by two fairly popular American romantic comedy writers. But this one by Charles Shyer & Nancy Meyers does not cut it compared to their other efforts. The story is about a couple of down-and-out traveling Americans, played by Richard Lewis and Sean Young, who stumble upon a lost dog and hope to make a fortune in reward money after seeing an ad in the paper for the dachsund's return. Upon trying to return it, they see a hand sticking out of a garage door at the lady's residence that they believe is attached to the rest of the dead body of the woman who is supposed to give them the money. They freak out and instead of contacting the police and telling them the truth they make out like runaways from the scene expecting to be framed for the murder. The other characters in the film are met on a train prior to this and hang around a Monte Carlo gambling resort doing various things to be pulled into the story. The other cast members include character actors John Candy, James Belushi, Cybill Shepherd, George Hamilton and others. After the police find out about the death, they start questioning the main characters and, of course, they have to work thru their goofy lies to figure out what really happened. None of the character actors mentioned earlier can bring this movie out of it's mediocre state despite some funny moments mostly provided by the Belushi/Shepherd couple. This isn't a horrible movie, it just isn't that good. There are plenty of average movies out there and this is just another one for the pile. Try it, maybe you'll like it, probably you won't. | 0neg
|
First, IFC runs Town and Country, and now this. The difference between that stinker and this Pink Panther rip-off is that Town and Country was watchable. This isn't.<br /><br />I can only surmise that the cast signed up for this so they could goof off in Europe on somebody else's dime. Belushi is especially irritating. His scene with Candy (doing a Z-grade Dom DeLuise) was torture. Speaking of torture, five minutes of the talentless Shepherd, and I bet the prisoners at Gitmo would crack like walnuts!<br /><br />The real "Crime" (besides this being green-lighted) is Shepherd's character: a mousy wife who takes a Monte Carlo casino for a half-million bucks! If you buy that, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in! | 0neg
|
Mix exotic tropical locations, babes in skimpy attire, explosions, good-looking Dudley Do-Right clones, a movie star with his best years behind him (Martin Sheen), a little martial arts and a sexy villainess (Tracy Lor.....er, sorry...Tracy ELIZABETH Lords) and you'd think you'd be in for some escapist fun. Not so! This is a dreary TV movie and even though it likes to promote itself as a "Charlie's Angels" deal,it is nowhere near as good as the original series or even the gawdawful, irretrievably stupid, recent C.A. movies. This abomination is best described as a THIRD RATE Andy Sidaris film. Nowhere near as much fun as Andy's "Hard Ticket To Hawaii", although some of the fight scenes are decent enough. The girls spend too much time posing and trying too look prissy and it gets annoying after a while. There's better genre stuff that this out there. Oh yeah, and the "babes" aren't as hot as they like to think they are. Terrible soundtrack...when it's there. | 0neg
|
Yes, this movie has kids going to space camp and it starts out okay enough as you have the kids meeting one another and learning the ropes. Then they introduce Jinx, a robot that could not possibly exist in 1986 as they do not have anything with that kind of artificial intelligence now. Kid becomes buddy with robot and robot repays the kid's kindness by shooting him and a group of other kids in this camp into outer space with a very limited oxygen supply and radios that do not have the signal to reach into space. This camp is also not very fun as these kids are put to real training and the instructors get all over them for failing missions or not doing the right things. Give it a rest, they are there for fun, not to become astronauts just yet, just give them the experience of space flight not a military like camp. However, you do get to see Joaquin Phoenix in a fairly early role. So in the end a movie that tries to be realistic in some areas, but with the introduction of Jinx and other factors you might as well had the kids battle space aliens on top of everything else that was happening in the movie as that would have made the movie a bit more enjoyable at least for me. Probably for a few others as well, who else would like to see Kate Capshaw's face ripped apart by some strange super alien creature. | 0neg
|
Rumor has it that when the NASA Technical Advisors to this film were asked to keep the picture believable, they laughed for several hours. After all, unless you are a politician or work/crew the shuttle, you are not going to get in the shuttle. Furthermore, Space (Cadet) Camp is in Alabama, not Florida.<br /><br />The truth is everyone on Earth will win multi-billion dollar lottery prizes before the events depicted in this film ever become possible. This film was meant for kids, and had to have been written by one, because they are not aware of the myriad restrictions and requirements regarding access to KSC/CCAFS.<br /><br />This is the most useless film of all time, and it was a well deserved flop. | 0neg
|
I was in second grade, 12 years ago. I remember it clearly. We were learning about space. All little kids want to go to space, right? Well, after I saw this, I was so scared to death that I would 'accidentally' get flung into space by some psychotic robot with a one track mind. I had no idea that this was a movie. I thought it was some news program or something. I guess it was my own version of when people were freaked out by the radio program 'War of the Worlds.' So, recently, I get this movie again to watch, realizing my favorite actor, Joaquin Phoenix was in it (then known as Leaf Phoenix). I can tell you, I was laughing at the dramatic parts and laughing even harder at the acting. I mean, when Andy is in space, she moves in slow motion, did you ever notice that? I don't think being in space makes you talk that slow or think that slow.<br /><br />The best part is when Andy is knocked unconscious by the oxygen tank, and begins to float backwards as the security doors close. Little Max is trying to pull her in. Suddenly, we get a major close up on Max's face as he shouts (in slow motion) "Whaaaaatttt'ssss happpeniiiinngggg?!?!?" I had no idea. | 0neg
|
OK, forget all the technical inconsisties or the physical impossibilities of the Space Shuttle accidentally being launched by a quirky robot with a heart of gold. Forget the hideous special effects and poorly-constructed one-dimensional characters. Just looking at the premise of the story. The very reason for the film to exist in the first place, and you will see just how badly this film was pieced together.<br /><br />I know 9 year olds that look at this insult to the intelligence and just laugh at it. The story is horrible. The acting is comical and the message its trying to show is incomprehensible. And whats worse, is that the cable Movie channels KEEP SHOWING IT! Its on twice a day every two or three days! Why does anyone in their right mind think that people would want to see this painful piece of celluloid multiple times, much less to see it at all?<br /><br />My recomendation is dont even bother spending the energy to watch this thing. Its just not worth it. | 0neg
|
Space Camp, which had the unfortunate luck to be planned around the time of the Challenger accident, deserves such luck. The "stars" make a mockery of acting, Lea Thomson actually being turned sideways, when asked for more than her usual wide-eyed innocent smile, presumably to mask her risible attempts. The movie is at times hilarious, when it begins to ask far too much of you. A small boy keeps a multi-million dollar robot in his closet which breaks when given too many commands by the hordes of cliched dorm-mates. This hackneyed and unlovable machine, "Jinx", is a major player in the ridiculous premise of the movie, which seems part Short Circuit, part 2001 by the Airplane team. I shan't bore you with this, suffice it to say you can only laugh when faced with it. Having said all of this, it is enjoyable to watch, in a SeaQuest, Saved by the Bell kind of way. The romance and technology, beware, are as unbelievable as each other. Also, if you're an eighties freak, its unmissable for the amusing performances of Kate Capshaw (Willie from Temple of Doom) and, obviously, Lea Thompson. Also, Joaquin Phoenix puts in a dodgy turn as a sort of wannabe Goonie who befriends Jinx. Do not go near this movie if you are not a fan of trash. | 0neg
|
I cannot believe how uneducated this movie is. It's like watching police academy, except it's with people that have no clue of what they are talking about, and...Wait, there is a stupid robot that is supposed to be a sidekick. I can understand suspension of disbelief, but this is just complete stupidity. Not only is there no plot to this movie. It's like watching someone that pretends to be a doctor, throw non-medical words around as if they were chief of staff at a major medical facility. Plus the people are wearing clothes that are un-befitting for a space program. I feel like I'm watching a valley-girls "b" movie, in space. | 0neg
|
I'm not going to bag this film for all the myriad technical f|u|c|k|u|p|s, it would take two days to outline how the whole thing isn't even remotely possible. Others have pointed out all the relevant stupidities already.<br /><br />Given all that, I still could have sort of enjoyed it, if only they hadn't included all the maudlin, nauseating, infuriating, Disneyesque sentimental crap, which is so out of place anywhere, but nowhere more than out in space, where the tiniest mistake can mean instant death.<br /><br />The "crew", as well as the "real" astronaut were equally guilty of putting all their fatuous nonsense ahead of everything else. It completely ruined any value the production may have had left.<br /><br />I'm surprised NASA let this garbage out so that so many people would get so much misinformation about something so important to them. If you haven't seen this yet, save yourself the irritation. Watch Apollo 13 again. At least that tried to be sort of real. | 0neg
|
This film should have been fun. A young Lea Thompson, a young Joaquin Phoenix... and Terry O'Quinn. In space. But it dragged on, had unlovable characters and had no target audience.<br /><br />Some kids go to a space camp and are accidentally launched into space by a robot friend of theirs (named, appropriately, Jinx). The space scenes are then long, repetitive (the same accident happens twice) and either cheesy or frightening depending on your point of view. Adults will be bored and cheesed out, kids might be scared as the way this was filmed really leaves an eerie sense about it.<br /><br />There is a budding romance, but unlike the shuttle -- this never takes off. Why it is included in the first place is unclear, except maybe to add extra tension between the characters - but it failed if that was the idea.<br /><br />A young Lea Thompson should be quirky and attractive, right? I mean, "Back to the Future" is great. But no, she was irritating and average-looking. Not someone you'd want to date, have as a friend or even consider as a role model. Joaquin Phoenix? He's really lucky he ever appeared in movies again this performance. Maybe he can act like Mikey in the Life Cereal commercials, but he doesn't seem to know how to be a normal boy. He doesn't fit in on screen and I don't think we can identify with him at home. I actually would have been happier if he had never returned to Earth.<br /><br />I don't recommend this film to anyone. | 0neg
|
Here's why the Jane Show won't work. Once again Canadian bonehead producers and writers can't create a sitcom without putting some kind of different spin on it. I guess these people don't watch a lot of T.V. from the U.S. which has the sitcom model down pat. No, here we have to do something different, we have to make the A story absolutely absurd and then have a meaningful B story to try to make up for it. The characters are two dimensional and the story lines are way over the top: Forklift races??? give me freaking break. Here's a little advice for the writers of the show, Don't write funny situations, find the funny in situations. And remember, you have to be born with a sense of humor to write truly funny stuff, not just be an improv monkey. | 0neg
|
I rented this film out having heard of the fuss about it not being put up for an Academy Award, but after watching it, it's easy to see why it didn't. Despite the beautiful photography, the film is incredibly slow moving, despite having hardly any plot.<br /><br />The plot is about a young boy trying to come to terms with his parents' death in what may or may not have been an accident (the film is never clear on this), and how his grandfather used to tell him fairy stories. The fairy stories contain the only bits of interest in the plot, but they're very short, and don't really seem to have any point. <br /><br />The first fairy story in particular concerns a boy trying to get a magical flower to his dying girlfriend to save her life, but the boy delays by tasting the flower first to make sure it is not poisonous which results in him being a few seconds too late to save his girlfriend - the grandfather then pronounces that the moral is that the boy was too impatient, but that doesn't make any sense because it was overcaution and slowness which resulted in his failure. Perfect metaphor for this film really. <br /><br />The photography of Skye is beautiful though, but then Stardust which was released this year is another film about fairy stories filmed in Skye and beautifully photographed - and it's infinitely better than this one. | 0neg
|
This film is self indulgent rubbish. Watch this film if you merely want to hear spoken Gaelic or enjoy the pleasant soundtrack. Watch for any other reason and you will be disappointed. It should be charming but isn't - it's just irritating. The characters are difficult to care about and the acting is poor. The stories within the film are also charmless and sinister. I was expecting a heartwarming family film but this also held no appeal to my fourteen year old daughter. It is rarely that I cannot see a film through to its conclusion but this one got the better of both of us.<br /><br />Although the film is set in current times it has the look and feel of a cheap East European film made during the Cold War. There isn't even enough in the way of beautiful Scottish scenery and cinematography to redeem it. A real shame because as a film this is an embarrassment to Scotland. | 0neg
|
Birthday Girl doesn't know what it wants to be - is it a comedy,, is it a drama...it just doesn't know. What could have been a very funny or touching film ends up in no-man's land. The premise is original enough to have warranted a script full of interesting scenarios but hardly delivers any and ends up petering out. This is a real shame if you look at the cast - it's very solid all the way through but they don't get the chance to shine. Very disappointing. | 0neg
|
It seems that the intention of the film was to show the aggressive (maffia-like) character of Russians, or at least of those Russians able to travel outside their big country; that it is too easy to rob a bank in England; and that British police is so inefficient that it cannot find the person who robbed the bank even when these subjects are leaving the country by air. In addition, Nicole Kidman and the supposed Russian colleagues spoke a language not yet identified anywhere, probably spoken by Aliens in the Ural mountains, but far to be the Russian one. So Nicole, if you really want to talk Russian, kindly go to Moscow or St. Petersburg and keep yourself busy learning Russian language grammar and its pronunciation. | 0neg
|
This film's trailer interested me enough to warrant renting the DVD. However, the resulting movie is absolutely dire! Admittedly, this is not the worst film ever made, or the worst film this year, but it came damn close!<br /><br />The main issue is the film not knowing what it wants to be: comedy, adult drama, thriller, teen-porn? The story is interesting, as it deals with the pitfalls of mail-order brides, but the film is a mess. What starts out as a mildly interesting "comedy" (a word I use in the loosest possible terms), then goes totally in reverse, and degenerates into a very dark and distasteful misogynistic thriller. Nicole Kidman should know better, and Ben Chaplin is wasted! As are Matthieu Kassovitz and Vincent Cassel, whom I can only presume did this for the money.<br /><br />This is a bad film in pretty much every single aspect. It's not funny, it's almost so sexist that you could almost forgive Benny Hill for everything he did, and the dramatic elements are just downright nasty. A film to be avoided, unless you absolutely have to see Kidman or Chaplin in every one of their films! | 0neg
|
this movie is the worst ive seen.. nicole kidman really dissapointed me.. this movie has nothing. i would not watch it again even if it were the last movie on earth. great actors but bad script. | 0neg
|
Nothing in this film interested me. I thought the actors were asleep while they were performing. That's not laid-back Stanislofsky method, that's just walking-through and saying lines, I'm afraid. Kidman's performance is sad. The story is, however, mildly entertaining if you want to put up with the bad acting. | 0neg
|
This film features Ben Chaplin as a bored bank employee in England who orders a mail order bride from Russia, recieves Nicole Kidman in the mail and gets more than he bargained for when, surprise, she isn't what she appears to be. The story is fairly predictible and Chaplin underacts too much to the point where he becomes somewhat anoying. Kidman is actualy rather good in this role, making her character about the only thing in this film that is interesting. GRADE: C | 0neg
|
If you really have to watch this movie because your girlfriend is in a romantic mood, let it be boy. But prepare yourself by bringing your hp if it comes with a radio.<br /><br />After having watched such a good movie as Arisan (2003), it is terrible to see what they come up with again in Indonesia. It seems that the only idea is to make money, but no one seems seriously to work on the image of Indonesia in the world of entertainment. That it is a 'global' world doesn't seem to come up in the minds of those who make movies in Indonesia. And since the Indonesian public swallows everything that is presented to them as 'Made in Indonesia' with a flavor of the west, they get away with it.<br /><br />OK, the story is nice to begin with. And it could have developed into a nice flick. But did the director never think about the fact that a musical needs first of all live music OR at least good playback, and secondly good choreography? In this movie, the playback is SO BAD that it makes you wanna cry right there in the cinema. Every single word you hear is followed seconds LATER by the actor or whoever sing playback, and it is extremely annoying while watching the movie.<br /><br />The choreography is as if they planned to make a movie about morning gymnastics, but in the end thought it would be nice to turn it into a musical... They only forgot to change the choreography. It is hardly dancing you see, they jump here and there, throw their legs up in the air, and that is about it.<br /><br />Well, at least there's a happy ending.... But if you can convince your girlfriend that a nice candlelight dinner is much more romantic, DO SO! | 0neg
|
What's with Indonesian musical movies? Never have I seen Indonesian musical movies like the ones made in Bollywood. They miss the spirit of the story and just a bunch of 'what they called' poetic lines.<br /><br />This story about love of two kids who are separated and then meet again after a few years of changes has no special remarks. It's a simple story plot (but it's quite focused though) with 'meant to be' musical story lines here and there.<br /><br />Confusing characters that should be saved by brilliant acting are neglected. The main actress may try to live up the character, but it's the best that she could do, trying. As for the casting, I don't feel the necessity to put a Balinese student in that story and of course, that's not the only unnecessary characters.<br /><br />The strange thing is, why would I want to watch this movie? Maybe because of the mangoes... | 0neg
|
I wonder who, how and more importantly why the decision to call Richard Attenborough to direct the most singular sensation to hit Broadway in many many years? He's an Academy Award winning director. Yes, he won for Ghandi you moron! Jeremy Irons is an Academy winning actor do you want to see him play Rocky Balboa? He has experience with musicals. Really? "Oh what a lovely war" have you forgotten? To answer your question, yes! The film is a disappointment, clear and simple. Not an ounce of the live energy survived the heavy handedness of the proceedings. Every character danced beautifully they were charming but their projection was theatrical. I felt nothing. But when I saw it on stage I felt everything. The film should have been cast with stars, unknown, newcomers but stars with compelling unforgettable faces even the most invisible of the group. Great actors who could dance beautifully. Well Michael Douglas was in it. True I forgot I'm absolutely wrong and you are absolutely right. Nothing like a Richard Attenborough Michael Douglas musical. | 0neg
|
For those who never saw A CHORUS LINE onstage and their only exposure to the story was this film, this film is OK as movie musicals, nothing special, just OK. I have seen the show on Broadway 4 times and even auditioned for a touring company of the show once and for someone who pretty much memorized the original production, the 1985 film version is so dreadful on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin. First of all, for those who have never auditioned for a theatrical production, let me assure you that IRL when you audition for a play, the director, producer, and choreographer never ask personal questions and don't give a crap about why you wanted to become a performer. A real theatrical audition, whether it be for a play or a musical, rarely takes more than five minutes. If you're auditioning as a dancer, you get shown a 64-bar dance combination once, you do it, and then they decide immediately whether you're in or out. Michael Bennett's original concept of the show was to flesh out the lives of dancers and introduce to the uninitiated the passion for performing and why so many sacrifice so much for so little. The play is about these dancers. First of all, director Richard Attenborough took so much focus off the dancers by beefing up the Cassie/Zach relationship and by casting Michael Douglas as Zach. In the play, you NEVER see Zach...he is just a voice in the back of the theater and his relationship with Cassie is barely touched upon. Cassie shown in the cab in traffic trying to get to the audition and upstairs talking to Larry (a character who is not even in the play)was all added for the movie and took so much focus off what the story is about. Major musical numbers were cut or rethought. The opening number in the play "I Hope I Get It" shows all of the dancers doing a jazz and ballet combination and then people get eliminated. In the movie they jam three hundred dancers onstage together and show them in closeup to disguise the fact that they have cast people in the film who can't dance (can you say "Audrey Landers"). "Goodbye 12, Goodbye 13, Hello Love", a brilliant vocal exploration of these dancers' childhood's jaundiced memories was reworked as "Surprise, Surprise" mainly a vehicle for the late Gregg Burge as Richie. The show's most famous song, "What I Did for Love" which in the show was a touching allegory sung by the entire cast about what they give up to dance, becomes just another standard love song in the film, performed tiredly by a miscast Allyson Reed as Cassie. Jeffrey Hornaday's choreography for the film is dull and unimaginative and doesn't hold a candle to Michael Bennett' original staging and when you're making a movie about dancers, the choreography has to be special. There are a couple of good dancers in the film, the previously mentioned Gregg Burge as Richie, Michelle Johnston as Bebe, and Janet Jones as Judy, but they are hardly given the opportunity to show what they can do, yet Audrey Landers, who can barely walk and chew gum at the same time, is given one of the show's best numbers, "Dance 10, Looks 3." I will admit that the finale, "One" is dazzling, but you have to wait almost two hours for that. I would say that if you never saw A CHORUS LINE onstage, this film might be worth a look, but if you are a devotee of the original Broadway musical...be afraid...be very afraid. | 0neg
|
I saw the original "Chorus Line" on Broadway God knows how many times and felt the passion, despair and joy come from this live experience in the theater. Michael Bennett knew he would have to re-imagine "Chorus" for the screen but could never figure out how to do it. If the man who came up with the show is stumped - that should answer your question. There are some shows that are simply made to be seen live - with an audience. However, Richard Attenborough fresh of the musical work of "Ghandi" and dancing with animals in "Doctor Doolittle" ended up directing this film which bore little to no resemblance to the stage show. Horrible songs were added (Surprise! Surprise!), great songs were dropped or given to other characters (which didn't make sense). Michael Douglas was mis-cast. People that couldn't dance tried to act and there was the sexy "Landers" woman who couldn't sing, act, or dance - I guess she had just finished being Ghandi's wife. The dances by Jeffrey Hornaday look like nothing more than schlock from "Flashdance" rejects and nothing works. I sat there stunned at how something so riveting and emotional could be drained to nothing. If you truly love this show and it is coming back to Broadway in 2006 - see it but don't think that the long running musical event that was "A Chorus Line" has any thing at all to do with this film. | 0neg
|
I admit to having been a fan of the original stage production. I never saw the movie version until very lately on cable, and watched it with anticipation, to see my memories brought alive again, because I adored the original show. Imagine my dismay.<br /><br />This has to be the worst translation of a Broadway show to film ever made. They changed the story, they changed the songs, they lost the soul. I was expecting a trip down memory lane, singing to the extraordinarily touching Music and the Mirror, At the Ballet, and Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen. Not! Not only did they adulterate the music to an almost unrecognizable point, but they messed up the storyline, adding songs and exterior plotlines (hello Cassie and Michael Douglas) not present in the original, and injecting "drama" where it wasn't necessary. The original had enough pathos on its own. If you were a fan of the original Broadway show, don't bother. I'm sorry I wasted my time, and diluted my memories, watching this tripe. | 0neg
|
On Broadway, A Chorus Line was pure magic. From the second the show opened with a spectacular burst of energy to the truly grand finale, a joyous curtain call of all those chorus members who we grew to love during the course of the show, we were totally engaged - captivated by the intensely personal stories, some funny, some clever, some stirring, of this chorus line. The movie is another matter entirely. The focus is now on the director - and WHAT an ogre he is! Every time the film switches to Michael Douglas, there he is with a bitter, sour expression, barking out questions and orders, screaming and yelling whenever he gets the chance. Yikes!! That changes the dynamics of the story. On Broadway, the director was indeed an imperious offstage presence, but he was also sort of a theatrical device to allow the stories of these amazing strong/fragile/intriguing/hilarious chorus line members to be told with insight and clarity. There is a reason this work won the Pulitzer Prize! And actually in one of the only moments the director appears, he is there to comfort the young Puerto Rican Dancer after we hear that dancer's heart-breaking story. He appears again to ultimately express his genuine affection/ concern for Cassie. But in the movie, from the second Douglas' director starts bitterly barking orders, the chorus line members' stories become secondary. It's like they are in a lousy profession, where a jaded director instead of showing the joy at creating a new exciting theatrical show, is jaded, exhausted, furious at having to audition these chorus members. On stage, there was ALWAYS the excitement of the show. Here in the movie practically from the word go, you feel sorry for everyone involved. During the course of the musical, we desperately wished every single one of those chorus members well, and how happy we would have been if they had all gotten the job! But of course that couldn't happen. But in the Finale when they all came back in glorious costume with those amazing spinning mirrors on stage, sometimes reflecting us in the audience, in our hearts, and we know, also in the hearts of all those chorus members both accepted and rejected, they were on stage forever dancing in a profession they loved so much, bringing magic to the theatre. In the movie, after all the misplaced story lines and emphasis, that magic becomes totally diluted. All we feel (even with the exact same curtain call), is that some of the members got a job with a mean-spirited director. So they all come on the screen and are dancing again. Big deal. | 0neg
|
Yes, I was lucky enough to see the long-running original production of Michael Bennett's hit musical. It was an amazing experience and I paid to see the movie when it hit theatres back in 1985. It is awful. Almost everything fails. First off, Attenborough (a fine actor, a good director with the right material) is a sorry choice - almost as bad as when John Huston was hired to mangle ANNIE. The camera is always in the wrong place - they chop up the songs and the CASTING!!! They are awful - the power of the play was these dancers - these hungry, talented performers just wanted a chance to show what they could do and when they got their chance - you couldn't take your eyes off of them. But this cast just gets by dancing, does a "nice" job singing but none of them spark one bit. In fact, look up the cast on IMDb - none of them really went on to do anything much. (OK, OK, Janet Jones married Gretzky - sheesh). So this cinema trainwreck does not capture for one second the magic, the desperation, the passion of the stage musical. A total strike-out! (But even though they try to smother the music - the great music still rises up at times and reminds people how great the score was). | 0neg
|
I'm not a stage purist. A movie could have been made of this play, and it would almost necessarily require changes... comme ci, comme ca. But the modest conceits of this material are lost or misunderstood by the movie's creators who are in full-on "shallow blockbuster" mode. It would be hard to imagine a worse director. Perhaps only Josh Logan & Jack Warner could have ruined this in the same way Attenborough did.<br /><br />Onstage A Chorus line was a triumph of workshopping as a production method. Dancers answering a casting call found themselves sitting around shooting the crap about their stage-career experiences (very 70s!). Then Bennett and Hamlisch took some time, handed them a song and cast them as themselves. ...astonishing! Unbelievably modern. The 'story'of ACL is (in turn) about answering a casting call for a play we never have a complete view of, because the play doesn't matter. It was meta before the idea was invented, 25 years before Adaptation noodled with a similar idea. ACL was also another in a reductivist trend that is still alive, & which is a hallmark of modern creativity: that technique itself is compelling... that there's more drama in an average person's life than you could ever synthesize with invented characters. What a gracious idea. The stage play had one performance area (an empty stage) and three different ways to alter the backdrop, to alleviate visual tedium, not to keep viewers distracted. The space recedes and the actors stories are spotlighted. It worked just fine. That was the point. All these ideas are trampled or bastardized. Set-wise, there wasn't one, and no costumes either until the the dancers came out for their final bows, in which the exhilarating "One" is finally, powerfully, performed in full (gold) top hats and tails, with moves we recognize because we've watched them in practice sessions. The pent-up anxiety of the play is released --- and audiences went nuts. <br /><br />After Grampa manhandles this, it's like a mushed, strangled bird. He clearly has the earlier, respected All that Jazz (and Fosse's stage piece Dancin') in mind as he makes his choices. Hamlisch's score was edgy & interesting for it's time, but time has not been kind to it. It's as schmaltzy as "jazz hands." And that's before Attenborough ever touches it. He's remarkable at finding whatever good was left, and mangling it. <br /><br />A simple question might have helped Attenborough while filming this, "Could I bear spending even a few minutes with people like these?" A major issue for any adaptation of the play is how the 4th wall of theater (pivotal by it's absence in theater) would be addressed in the film format. There's never been a more "frontal" play. The answer they came up with was, "I'm sorry.. what was the question?" The cast has been augmented from a manageable number of unique narratives, to a crowd suffocating each other and the audience, and blending their grating selves together. I was well past my annoyance threshold when that annoying little runt swings across the stage on a rope, clowning at the (absent) audience. The play made you understand theater people. This movie just makes you want to choke them.<br /><br />Perhaps Broadways annoying trend of characters walking directly to stage center and singing their stories at the audience (Les Miz, Miss Saigon) instead of relating to other characters started here. But the worst imaginable revival of the play will make you feel more alive than this movie. <br /><br />A Chorus Line is pure schlock. | 0neg
|
If you were to judge based on the movie alone, the committee that gave the stage musical "A Chorus Line" a Pulitzer Prize, and Broadway audiences that kept the war horse running for 15 years, were all on heavy narcotics, because one singular sensation this film certainly is NOT.<br /><br />What possessed anyone to think that Richard Attenborough was the right fit for this material utterly mystifies me, but he makes a musical that is almost entirely about movement just sit on the screen like a lump of clay.<br /><br />Not content with the original score the way it was originally written, someone decided that what the film really needed was a brand new song to give the movie some zip. Thus we are assaulted with the Oscar-nominated(!) "Surprise, Surprise." Well surprise, surprise, the song stinks, and so does the movie.<br /><br />Grade: D | 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.