text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
I wasn't as "lucky" as some of the others commenting on this film: i have never seen anything else out of the...shall we say... "fecund" mind of Sarno. I agree with many: some of the actresses who spend a lot of time topless and (go-go) dancing are not really that attractive. I kinda liked Fraulein Crank(?)...she was so homely , she was cute! The acting was pretty stale, also, though delivering lines in a second language might have accounted for a lot of that problem. Trying to follow the plot was a major chore: was there one, really? I do heartily agree with one other comment: for a vampire movie, there's not much blood. Yep, if you want GOOD bloodsucking flicks, check out such Hammer classics as "Horror of Dracula" and (my personal favourite) "Brides of Dracula".<br /><br />The most (unintentionally) humorous part is where the lady doctor gets her clothes torn off by a cloud of bats...which you never SEE!...the bats, I mean.<br /><br />Okay as a time-waster if you happen to catch it on cable here in the Great White North but, for heaven's sake, don't rent it! | 0neg
|
This is not a horror film, but a boring sex movie. A very bad movie, to be avoided by any serious horror fan. No plot, awful acting and annoying music. If you only watch the trailer you will know enough... It's a shame that such thing is available on VHS or video while there are so many good movies unavailable. If you like vampires try the Hammer Productions or the Italian Gothic from Mario Bava and Antonio Margheriti instead. Those are masterpieces if you compare this with this trash. Rating = even "1" is too much! And believe me, I am not the only one with this opinion. | 0neg
|
This is a German film from 1974 that is something to do with some women who come to a castle and beyond that, I can't really tell you their purpose or even what the purpose of the movie is. I can tell you that there's several women who also moonlight as servants at this particular castle who strip, put on body paint and gyrate to bongos like they were at the Goth Kit-Kat Klub, though, and that seems to be a good portion of the run time of this film. Yeah, there seems to be something with devil worship and vampires, and there's some girl on girl stuff, etc., but the main focus seems to be the painted babes gyrating away in the basement. I did rather like the eye-rolling of one of the main housekeepers/devil worshipers, that lent an authenticity to the proceedings and made her even more evil-looking. Was that Wanda the Evil Lesbian (as billed in the credits)? No matter. If you aren't too picky about your lesbian devil worshiping movies, you might like this, otherwise it's pretty dull stuff and I couldn't even finish it, I was so bored. 3 out of 10. | 0neg
|
For a fan series, I must admit that Hidden Frontier is not at all that bad. But, reviewing this series can not be based on whether it is a fan series or not. The initiative in itself is commendable. The creativity as well. I reckon these are people with ordinary jobs, and a big enthusiastic heart for Star Trek. But, doing all this work. Pulling all these resources. Taking all this time, and still all those flaws.<br /><br />First of all the acting, and the lines are awful. For most. The dialogs belongs in a 70's military show, not in Star Trek. The captain (Mr Squinty) looks like he is about to burst into laughter anytime. And most characters are just reading their lines. The directors should be aware of the fact that "retake" is not just a word in the dictionary. But I also guess that the series are made in the manner of "Two Takes Frakes", who directed many of the TNG episodes and movies Also, I could not help but think that most of the actors are typical Trekkies. Without going any deeper into that assumption.<br /><br />My biggest concern regarding the whole project, is the quality of the releases. When they first decided to spend so much time, and resources on this series - why didn't they make it available in decent quality? Using the quick time format, with low low resolution is a waste of talent. Even the "higres" episodes is considered bad quality compared to the standard quality series are released in. Using Xvid codec, with a larger resolution and file size would have improved the experience massively. If band with problems was the issue, setting up a torrent tracker would have solved that.<br /><br />Let's hope the crew decides to brush the series up, and perhaps release it on DVD, giving it the quality the project deserves. | 0neg
|
First off, let me say that I am a great believer in Fanpro stuff. I see it as a way to continue a good show long after it has been cancelled. Star Trek Voyages and Star Wars Revelations are examples of decent efforts. So I have a soft-spot for fanpro stuff that means I'll overlook things that I would ordinarily slate badly.<br /><br />So on to ST: HF. Well, first off the good things. Enthusiasm is a major part of making any show believable and, for the most part, the crew of the various ships all seem to be having a good time with their roles. Next, the effects aren't bad for a home-brew effort, with nothing to make you really wince. The stories aren't too bad either. Nothing particularly innovative, but solid enough stuff and at least there are ongoing story-arcs.<br /><br />But it has a lot of faults.<br /><br />First off, although they quite obviously HAVE to rip-off Star Trek footage, set backdrops, music and effects, I see no reason why they proceeded to rip off virtually every other sci-fi musical score ever made. Everything from Aliens to Starship Troopers rears it orchestral head at one point or another. Likewise, much of the footage is from other movies, dutifully CGI'd over to make it look different. The Grey warships, for instance, though disguised, are quite obviously Star Destroyers from Star Wars. And the station is also rather obviously Fleet Battle Station Ticonderoga from Starship Troopers. Likewise, sound effects from various Star Wars movies appear in space battles between fighters, as does animated over footage. In one scene in either first or second season, I think, you even see two TIE fighters fly past during a battle, which hardly does your suspension of disbelief any favours.<br /><br />Acting varies from the reasonable to the hideously painful to watch. Everyone does improve as the seasons progress, though, but expect to grimace at the screen a lot, especially in the early seasons. They've also made some interesting acting choices. Let's just say that the food replicators on this show seem permanently set to "cake" and leave it at that.<br /><br />Make-up effects are generally quite effective on the whole. But they really ought to mercilessly club to death the person who decided to use cheap Ferengi and Cardassian masks for anything other than background use or "passing" shots. They are just beyond unrealistic. Every time I saw one of these (apart from trying not to laugh too much) I kept expecting the unfortunate soul wearing it to pull out a gun and announce that "This is a stick-up!" In one scene a "Cardassian" actually talks whilst wearing one of these. Not only do the lips not move, but the mask doesn't even have an opening where the mouth should be. Someone needs to be slapped hard for that. Couldn't they have taken a craft knife to it, for goodness' sake! There are also some well-done, but unintentionally funny make-up jobs, such as the Herman Munster look alike.<br /><br />The writing, though coherent, is nothing new. Instead the script runs like a continuation of DS9, with the ships heading out from DS12 on various missions. The new enemy, "The Grey" aren't very menacing and the plot line involving them is effectively a reworking of the Borg threads. i.e. Starfleet meet the Grey, the Grey are hugely powerful, Starfleet barely escape with their lives, then through technology they begin to find ways to combat the enemy etc etc. All done before with the Borg.<br /><br />Another bone of contention is the dialogue. Star Trek writers have long had the ability to write "insert technobabble here" into a script. It usually means an exposition of the latest plan to combat the enemy using "quantum phase discriminators" or "isolytic charges" etc. In other words, nonsense that tells you that they are on the case and a resolution is at hand.<br /><br />The words are just gibberish really. I've no problem with this, but where ST:HF makes a mess of it is where they include real-world comments into this concept.<br /><br />Tactical advice such as "We need to regroup" sounds good, but not when uttered by trio of characters already standing in a group. Likewise when asked what the situation is, a tactical officer is heard to reply "We count three battleships". He actually needed to count them? C'mon! I expected the questioner to ask him "Are you sure?" or "Can you double check". But my all-time favourite comment is this: <br /><br />Captain: "Can we establish two-way communication?"<br /><br />Comms officer: "No, we can only send and receive.."<br /><br />Well, duh!.....<br /><br />Having said all the above, the show does improve as it goes along. Seasons 1 and 2 are pretty bad, 3 shows an improvement but 4 & 5 are where it starts to get noticeably better. Season 6 so far looks quite reasonable.<br /><br />I do have a problem with their choice of media for the shows though. Quicktime sucks, quite frankly and the sooner they move to divx/avi format the better. Some of us like to actually take our downloaded shows and watch them on decent size screen and not peer at a tiny QT window on a computer monitor. Not only does Quicktime make this difficult, but the 320x180 resolution the shows are in does not scale at all well. In fact, it makes the shows pretty unwatchable, like they were a tenth-generation VHS tape copy. The least they could do was to include a hi-res downloadable option.<br /><br />Anyway, the show has promise, and I'm even beginning to like some of the characters. But that's 40 episodes on, so I'm not sure this says that much about character development at all.<br /><br />But what can you say, it's free....<br /><br />PS: Out of 28 votes, 19 people rated this show as a 9 or 10. Hmmmm... were we watching the same show? Or are you 19 all three year olds? | 0neg
|
How low can someone sink while trying to recapture an old glory? ST:HF will be glad to show you.<br /><br />If you are used to seeing what made for a good Star Trek show, do NOT watch this.<br /><br />The writing is hodge-podge, the actors' portrayals of their characters weak, and most of all, the design work is downright doggy.<br /><br />Like watching strong captains, don't look here! Like the strong Federation attitude? Forget about it here! Starfleet is mocked by ensigns wearing SPIKES in their hair.<br /><br />While a seemingly mentally feeble captain shuffles about and within two minutes of the opening show's credits, Ensign Spikey is attempting to arrange a tryst with an engineer. It just degrades from there. No, not even uniforms match, for goodness sake. They are too small or too big, collars down to their chests, and TNG Seasons One and Two Uniforms mixed in with Season Three and DS9 uniforms. The strict discipline and tradition of any of the originals in lacking in this production down to the treads! The only good thing about this show is its graphics, which seem to improve a bit with each season. OK, I take that back. Who uses CG that inexpertly? The designers of this show.<br /><br />Don't bother with it, it will offend your Star Trek sense, as it did mine. Not even the throw backs to previous shows can save this catastrophe.<br /><br />I wept openly when i watched this, probably because my eyes were bleeding and my head almost ruptured. That bad. | 0neg
|
I was attracted to this movie when I looked at cast list, but after I watched it I must admit that I felt a bit disappointed. The main problem of this movie is that actors aren't capable of holding this movie on their back. Why? Because of bad script. Although Dillon, Lane and Jones try very hard to take this movie on another level, there is no innovative storytelling and the direction is too ordinary. So for Matt Dillon fans this is watchable movie, just like for admirers of beautiful Diane Lane. Legendary Tommy Lee Jones is always great but this is not movie for him; far below his level. So if you get hooked up by this great cast watch it but don't expect anything big or extraordinary. The only thing that you'll remember about this flick is Diane Lane scenes; rest of it is very forgettable. | 0neg
|
Follow-up to 1973's "Walking Tall" continues the real-life drama surrounding Tennessee sheriff Buford Pusser, but this installment plays like a lame TV-movie. Bo Svenson takes over the lead role from Joe Don Baker, but he's much too mild for the part; he comes off like an ambling country singer with a bat instead of a guitar. Good supporting actors like Richard Jaekel, Luke Askew and Robert DoQui end up with very little to do. I would give the film one-star strictly on its good intentions, but the screenplay is a transparent and lazy mass of routine predicaments and the production is cheapjack. Followed in 1977 by "Final Chapter-Walking Tall" and in 1978 by the television film "A Real American Hero". | 0neg
|
How can they from Joe Don Baker (as Bufford Pusser in the first sequel) to Bo Svenson (as Bufford Pusser in the second sequel).Why did they do that for.Just Because Bo Svenon look more a like to Bufford Pusser they still should'nt of changed it because the first sequel it was Joe Don Baker as Bufford Pusser and that one of the thing i wanted to see in the second sequel.<br /><br />I would've given this movie a 7 out of 10 and i would've given it a 1 out of 10 if the story did'nt have anything to do with Bufford Pusser's life but it did and that why i had given this movie a 3 out 10.<br /><br />I strongly suggest that anyone who is planning on watching this cheese i suggest don't and watch the first sequel instead. | 0neg
|
Autobiography of founder of zoo in NYC starts out by being very cute and would be great family movie if it stayed there. however we get more and more involved with reality as gorilla grows up to be a wild thing not easily amenable to his "mother's" wishes - this might scare younger children, esp. scenes where Buddy tries to injure Gertrude. rather quick resolution at the end. below average. | 0neg
|
As a big fan of gorilla movies in general, I anticipated that this one would be great - and as for the gorilla effects, They were quite good, however - that is the only thing I can write about this flop. The film claims to be based on a true story but in effect, it does not even come close to what actually happened to "Buddy" - who in real life, was the famous Gargantua, sold to Ringling Bros. by our supposed "heroic" Gertrude Lintz, known by many animal enthusiasts as a woman who hardly had her animals' welfare in the best interest. As far as Buddy being portrayed as becoming aggressive, this was total fiction and at no time did the gorilla, in real life, resort to such behavior. buddy did, in fact, escape his wooden crate (not a plush cage room as depicted in movie) during a storm, to seek shelter and comfort in the house, which frightened Gertrude Lintz into selling him. No, Buddy was not released into a gorilla family surrounded by lush trees in a zoological paradise - he was abandoned in a wooden crate, deep in the back of a garage for some time with only a single light bulb for comfort and then sold to the circus - where he actually lived a better life having peanuts thrown at him until he died (historically the oldest living gorilla on record, by the way) before a show in Miami. Notice also, in the film, how Buddy grows older but the chimpanzees never age. (The chimps, by the way, were not raised simultaneously with other animals, including Buddy, as portrayed in the film) | 0neg
|
Curiously, it is Rene Russo's eyes and mouth--not Buddy the Gorilla's-- that emerge as the focal point of "Buddy", a Jim Henson Pictures production through Francis Ford Coppola's Zoetrope. Somehow, countless close-ups of Russo's face slipped passed in the post-production stages, and she literally fills the screen so many times the poor apes are upstaged. Unintentionally funny true story adapted from Gertrude "Trudy" Davies Lint's memoirs about a wealthy doctor's wife who turns their mansion into a menagerie for pets and wild-life. The movie goes beyond good intentions...it positively drips with earnest sincerity. The movie never sparkles with the kind of "family film" magic that it needed, and before too long both the people and the animals seem distinctly programmed (nothing here feels real). About ten minutes in, two chimpanzees are goofing around in Russo's kitchen and start throwing a butcher's knife back and forth (it misses Alan Cumming's head by inches); yet, no eyebrows are raised because it's all in a day's fun. Still, when full-grown gorilla Buddy gets crazy during a thunderstorm, the cops are called--and everyone stares at Buddy through the window while he busts up the living room furniture. The furniture should be the least of anyone's worries in this flabbergasting, do-gooder failure. But, at least we know Russo was in good hands: whenever director Caroline Thompson needs a good pick-up shot, she gives unstartled Rene another extreme close-up. I wonder what the lipstick budget was on this picture? ** from **** | 0neg
|
Some films are so bad that they're good. This is clearly not one of them. Based on a true story, this film was about as true to the story as Pinocchio's chances of becoming a real boy. The acting was terrible, the direction was poor, and it travelled way too fast. It was as if the director just wanted to get it over and done with and go home.<br /><br />Nor did Melissa Joan Hart ever strike me as a talented actress, but then every film she made was pretty low-budget anyway. Like most of her other films, she lets down her characters by hamming them up too much, talking too quickly as if speeding up her words is going to make her more dramatic. She really brings out the sense that there is a crew in front of her and she's talking to a camera, when she should be engaging the viewer in her character. It pretty much lets down the whole film, and any leg that it may have had left to stand on, is ruined.<br /><br />Probably the only good thing about the film is when she got nailed in the end. But even that wasn't satisfying enough to subdue my loathing for such a bad film.<br /><br />Watch it if your taste in film is blander than a piece of dry toast. | 0neg
|
Terry West had a good idea w\ this movie. He just didn't flesh it thru. There are endless shots of the creepy looking school's exteriors that go on forever and probably to pad the film's running time. Also at this school there are only 2 students. Misty Mundae is good as usual but this film will always belong to Ruby LaRocca (which is the only reason to watch the film in the beginning). If the script centered on her interesting character we'd have a movie to watch. She is so GORGEOUS!! Good news for DVD buyers, Terry West's earlier (and better) film "Blood For The Muse" is a special feature. One thing I'd like to say is that this movie feels like someone who's not good at delivering the punch line at the end of a long joke for the ending feels that very same way. Then again, just watch this for Ruby LaRocca. | 0neg
|
I've seen (far too) many flicks from this company - this one is about middle of the pack. One the good side, its a bit more stylized and under control than some of their fare - less of the sophomoric attempts at humor and more adherence to story (for what its worth). Many of their titles, like Sexy Sixth Sense, are buried by baaaad performances and an amateurish sensibility. On the other side, I found the simulated sex scenes not as hot as some of their other flicks (like Vampire Vixens, Gladiator Eroticus, Spiderbabe or Mistress Frankenstein).<br /><br />Misty Mundae is always a 10 on the peter meter, as is Darian Caine. I found Barbara Joyce hot in a school-marm kinda way, and Ruby LaRocca a sexy little hottie.<br /><br />Watch this with the remote firmly in your (free) hand, on a night when you need a break from porn. Don't waste your time wanting to check the story - you've got better things to do w/ your life. It is not a movie, it's pure T&A, but not bad by that standard. | 0neg
|
As one of the few commentators not to have seen the 1st film, I found this to be a very disappointing movie.<br /><br />Yes, it has a funny awkward type of humour if you can bear the (highly) morally dubious premise. However, it fails abysmally in the important areas.<br /><br />There is thin and nonsensical plot line involving Gordon Sinclair's generous friend who may or may not be entwined in a conspiracy to supply dangerous electronics to Third World countries - possibly in free computers ... or possibly not. Vague, long-winded and inconclusive. The lack of any substantial ending is so infuriating and what is present is pompous and wholly illogical. The film feels half-finished.<br /><br />Suspension of disbelief is extremely difficult when witnessing a very attractive female teacher (Maria Doyle Kennedy) can be drawn to Gordon Sinclair's unimpressive character, especially when he fends off her advances. Laughable. It worsens later in the film when he achieves his romantic ambitions then throws it all away for some ideals based on very little evidence of ambiguous value.<br /><br />Not many films leave me feeling cheated, but I felt my time was stolen. | 0neg
|
First of all my heartfelt commiserations to anyone who bought a cinema ticket in the hope of seeing a film in the same mould as the fantastic Gregory's Girl and Local Hero but ended up leaving the theatre feeling disappointed and vaguely cheated. While it's true that sequels are usually, bar a few notable exceptions, a mistake and exist merely to provide studio executives with an opportunity to cash in on the success of a previous film by offering us either a thinly disguised retread of the original story or a plot line so far removed from the intentions of the original that the resulting film makes no sense. In the case of Gregory's Two Girls, Bill Forsyth has the dubious honour of managing to commit both sins - on the one hand revisiting the plot of Gregory's Girl, while at the same time serving up a frankly incredible and moronic storyline involving Scottish arms dealers. Schoolboy Gregory is now a teacher at the same school where at the tender age of sixteen, he harboured a hopeless passion for the football playing Dorothy. Although now thirty five, Gregory still harbours a hopeless passion but now for the football playing Frances, also sixteen, despite the fact that music teacher, Bel has made it clear that she is attracted to him. His passion for Frances and his desire to impress her lead to his involvement in a scheme to expose a local arms dealer who also happens to be an old schoolfriend. There's no point in going any further as the rest of the story is forgettable and the ending makes no real sense at all. The main problem lies with the character of Gregory himself, in that there is no sign of the endearing and charming sixteen year old Gregory who actively and comically pursues Dorothy convinced that he would eventually win her over. At thirty five, Gregory is presented to us as a rather sad and friendless creature whose life is neither active nor comic. Outside of work his time is spent watching videos of Noam Chomsky and reading magazines about international injustices. As his friends and family from the previous film have seemingly vanished, save two pointless scenes with his younger sister, who no longer offers him advice or seems at all interested in his life, we are left confused about what it is Gregory really wants, who he is and why he is the way he is. Why for example is he friendless? Why does he never see his father, who is clearly still alive? Why has he returned to teach at the school he once attended? Why is he so interested in Noam Chomsky and injustice? Why has he become so apathetic? Why is he attracted to Frances? Why isn't he attracted to Bel until the last twenty minutes of the film? What in heaven's name do Bel or Frances see in him as he is neither drop dead gorgeous or even interesting? Why does he continue to try and impress Frances even after he and Bel have become an item and when their association threatens to completely disrupt his life? Are we really to believe that a Scottish arms dealer openly selling weapons of torture to oppressive regimes could manage to evade media scrutiny but fall foul of a couple of school-kids? Does Gregory really think that dumping a handful of computers into the sea will change anything? To make matters worse, actor John Gordon Sinclair attempts to rehash his performance as the adolescent Gregory right down to the facial expressions and awkward body language. Unfortunately on a thirty five year old it just comes across as odd and vaguely creepy. On top of that, it's hard to feel any sympathy for, or empathy with a teacher who has erotic dreams involving sex with one of their uniform wearing pupils while they both lie on a pile of gym mats. Rather than being amusing it simply smacks of paedophilia. It's hard to know what was going through Bill Forsyth's head when he wrote this script or why he thought fans of the original film would embrace a story so completely lacking in the charm, wit and warmth that turned the first movie into a classic. I can only assume that the plan was to craft a film about a man who was refusing to grow up and commit to adult life and perhaps whose happiest memory was of being sixteen and pursuing the best looking girl in the school but who by degrees is forced to accept that a life lived in the past is no life at all.That at least could have been the basis of a film which was thematically interesting and intelligent. As it is Gregory's Two Girls adds up 116 wasted and pointless minutes saying nothing and signifying even less. Gregory's Girl was responsible for launching Bill Forsyth's career, here's hoping that Gregory's Two Girls won't be responsible for sinking it. | 0neg
|
Watched this film having really enjoyed Gregory's Girl many years ago. This was drivel. The plot was vaguely distasteful with the teacher and his friend perving over 14-15-year-old girls in very short skirts. Previous commenters seem to think that this doesn't matter, but I found it rather nasty. If you have children at school then the last thing you want is to think that every youngish teacher is lusting after his pupils. We were surprised that the censor let that through. Apart from that the film was just a waste of time. The script was poor and John Gordon Sinclair trying too hard to recreate his schoolboy image, slightly wacky and off the wall. Why anyone would want to lust after him in this performance is incredible. This film failed on all counts for me. Dreadful. Please don't waste your time watching it. Life's too short | 0neg
|
This film is a travesty, and isn't fit to keep company with the superior original. The plot is an absolute mess, and the film is way too long. Everytime they're struggling, they desperately inject a sentimental reminder from the first film.<br /><br />"Gregory's Girl" is one of the top 10 British films of all time, this one is awful. | 0neg
|
This one came out during the Western genre’s last gasp; unfortunately, it emerges to be a very minor and altogether unsatisfactory effort – even if made by and with veterans in the field! To begin with, the plot offers nothing remotely new: James Coburn escapes from a chain gang, intent on killing the man (now retired) who put him there – Charlton Heston. While the latter lays a trap for him, Coburn outwits Heston by kidnapping his daughter (Barbara Hershey). Naturally, the former lawman – accompanied by Hershey’s greenhorn fiancé (Chris Mitchum) – sets out in pursuit of Coburn and his followers, all of whom broke jail along with him.<br /><br />Rather than handling the proceedings in his customary sub-Fordian style, McLaglen goes for a Sam Peckinpah approach – with which he’s never fully at ease: repellent characters, plenty of violence, and the sexual tension generated by Hershey’s presence among Coburn’s lusty bunch. Incidentally, Heston and Coburn had previously appeared together in a Sam Peckinpah Western – the troubled MAJOR DUNDEE (1965; I really need to pick up the restored edition of this one on DVD, though I recently taped the theatrical version in pan-and-scan format off TCM UK). Anyway, the film is too generic to yield the elegiac mood it clearly strives for (suggested also by the title): then again, both stars had already paid a fitting valediction to this most American of genres – WILL PENNY (1968) for Heston and Coburn with PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID (1973)! <br /><br />At least, though, Heston maintains a modicum of dignity here – his ageing character attempting to stay ahead of half-breed Coburn by anticipating what his next move will be; the latter, however, tackles an uncommonly brutish role and only really comes into his own at the climax (relishing his moment of vengeance by sadistically forcing Heston to witness his associates’ gang-rape of Hershey). Apart from the latter, this lengthy sequence sees Heston try to fool Coburn with a trick borrowed from his own EL CID (1961), the villainous gang is then trapped inside a bushfire ignited by the practiced Heston and the violent death of the two ‘obsolete’ protagonists (as was his fashion, Heston’s demise takes the form of a gratuitous sacrifice!).<br /><br />The supporting cast includes Michael Parks as the ineffectual town sheriff, Jorge Rivero as Coburn’s Mexican lieutenant, and Larry Wilcox – of the TV series CHiPs! – as the youngest member of Coburn’s gang who’s assigned the task of watching over Hershey (while doing his best to keep his drooling mates away!). Jerry Goldsmith contributes a flavorful but, at the same time, unremarkable score. | 0neg
|
I'm going to have to disagree with the previous comment and side with Maltin on this one. This is a second rate, excessively vicious Western that creaks and groans trying to put across its central theme of the Wild West being tamed and kicked aside by the steady march of time. It would like to be in the tradition of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", but lacks that film's poignancy and charm. Andrew McLaglen's direction is limp, and the final 30 minutes or so are a real botch, with some incomprehensible strategy on the part of heroes Charlton Heston and Chris Mitchum. (Someone give me a holler if you can explain to me why they set that hillside on fire.) There was something callous about the whole treatment of the rape scene, and the woman's reaction afterwards certainly did not ring true. Coburn is plenty nasty as the half breed escaped convict out for revenge, but all of his fellow escapees are underdeveloped (they're like bowling pins to be knocked down one by one as the story lurches forward). Michael Parks gives one of his typically shifty, lethargic, mumbling performances, but in this case it was appropriate as his modern style sheriff symbolizes the complacency that technological progress can bring about. | 0neg
|
I don't know why I'm taking the time to review this waste-of-time movie. If you stick with it long enough in hopes of a satisfying conclusion good, bad, or surprising don't. It finally fizzles out after stiff, formulaic, predictable dialogue and acting. Indoor scenes are so harshly lit you think if the camera were zoomed out one millimeter further you'd see the klieg lights. Costumes, hair-do's, and sets are starched, pressed, and immaculate. Are we supposed to imagine common people really lived like that in early 20th-century Arizona? Other reviews' comparisons to Sam Peckinpah are an insult to Peckinpah: at least that director wove his violence into the context of chaos and mayhem. HARD MEN's gore is gratuitous exploding squibs from wooden impersonations of bad guys with manicured fingernails. Huh?!? I can believe Heston thought he might have been making something of worth with this film. (He does get to clutch his gun in his cold fingers.) But Coburn? I'll never guess why he signed up for this travesty. Want to see a movie about the end of the West as we knew it, the end of Westerns as we knew them? Watch THE SHOOTIST or UNFORGIVEN again. THE LAST HARD MEN is a mockery of an obituary to the Western. | 0neg
|
Incarcerated train robber near Yuma breaks free his chain-gang and heads for the retired sheriff responsible for killing his wife (as well as a hidden stash of gold which remains hidden thanks to the screenwriter). Attempt to bring the western genre up-to-date with 1970s-style violence and brutality isn't even in the same league as some of the new-fangled westerns which came out of the late-'60s. It is impossibly simple and square, with the female characters merely around as punching-bags and possible rape victims. As the former sheriff back in command, Charlton Heston gives one of his laziest, least-inspired performances ever (he has one good moment, attempting to read a letter and fumbling for his glasses). James Coburn, as the half-mad half-breed, is pretty much on auto-pilot as well, but Coburn has a way of turning even the hoariest dialogue and situations into something prickly and unnerving. It's his show all the way. *1/2 from **** | 0neg
|
By 1976 the western was an exhausted genre and the makers of this film clearly knew it. Still, instead of shelving the project and saving us from having to watch it, they went ahead and made it anyway. Apparently in need of an interesting thread to get the audiences to come and see the film, they decided to make it as blatantly violent and unpleasant as possible. Hell, it worked for The Wild Bunch so why shouldn't it work here? Of course, The Wild Bunch had the benefit of a superb script but the script of The Last Hard Men is plain old-fashioned rubbish.<br /><br /> It's hard to figure out what attracted Charlton Heston and James Coburn to their respective roles. Heston plays a retired lawman who goes after an escaped bunch of convicts led by a violent outlaw (Coburn). The hunt becomes even more personal when Heston's daughter (Barbara Hershey) is kidnapped by the convicts and subjected to sexual degradation.<br /><br /> This is a bloodthirsty film indeed in which every time someone dies it is displayed in over-the-top detail. It's tremendously disappointing really, because the star pairing sounds like a mouth-watering prospect. There's no sense of pace or urgency in the film either. It takes an eternity to get going, but when the action finally does come it is marred by the emphasis on nastiness. All in all, this might be the very worst film that Heston ever made. I'm sure it's one of the productions he is loathe to include on his illustrious CV. | 0neg
|
Stereotyped, derivative, unoriginal and boring Western. The two popular stars (Charlton Heston and James Coburn) both give performances that are far from their best, and justifiably so; they both have superficial roles and character traits stated mainly by dialogue. Heston is a sheriff who "liked the world better as it used to be before" and Coburn is an outlaw who "owes something to the man who locked him up and has to pay his debt". Additionally, Heston is so old that he has trouble riding a horse and Coburn is mean and tough but not as cold-blooded a killer as some of the minor villains. Apparently, the filmmakers couldn't come up with even ONE original idea about how to make this movie somewhat distinguished. (*1/2) | 0neg
|
Damn, I thought I'd seen some bad westerns. Can't top this one though. Hell I think I'd rather have my eyes stapled open for a Trinity Triple Feature for cryin out loud. I dont think I'll be able to watch Ben Hur again without laughing my ass off. Just really bad.<br /><br />But hey, if you like stupid westerns with acknowledged stars in the thing take a peek at Shoot Out with Gregory Peck. It's just as bad, but much funnier. 1/10 | 0neg
|
I saw this film over the weekend and while I was impressed as always with the beauty and polish of Church-produced films, I left disappointed that this one fell so short, failing to inform members and leaving investigators with many unanswered questions.<br /><br />The film is 70 minutes of vignettes from the life of Joseph Smith. It's not a true biopic because there's no real coherent narrative. Most of the episodes concern Joseph doing good deeds, playing baseball, running races and laughing with children, often in sloooow motion. What a great, just folks kind of guy that Joseph was, huh? Look at him out there beating rugs for his wife Emma. Well, howzbout the rugs of his 33 plural wives?? No mention whatsoever is made of polygamy. A glaring omission.<br /><br />And it is in such omissions where the film falters. It supplies too little information and leaves critical thinking audience members wondering WHY is Joseph getting tarred and feathered, WHY is he getting thrown in jail and WHY does that mob want to kill him? The film's climax is of course Joseph and Hyrum's trek to Carthage jail (riding past a veritable United Nations of faces looking out from Nauvoo's doorways). But no mention is ever made about WHY. Nothing about Smith suppressing the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper and ordering its press destroyed for its revealing the secret teaching of polygamy. The audience is left to wonder or to assume it's just more baseless persecution of the Church. No mention of Joseph being charged with treason for declaring martial law and calling out the Nauvoo militia.<br /><br />Of course I certainly did not expect this Church-produced film to present the Joseph of Richard Bushman's recent biography Rough Stone Rolling, but I was surprised and taken aback at just how little of substance was actually presented.<br /><br />And worse, what substance that was presented was often inaccurate. Two examples jumped out at me. First, the translation of the Book of Mormon. The film shows Joseph reading right off the golden plates in their two-ring binder, which plates in reality were hidden far from the site. It's well known that Joseph did his translating by burying his face in his hat, peering at the seer stone in there. The second inaccuracy occurs at Carthage jail, where the mob storms the cell. The History of the Church reports that Joseph had a six-shooter and even fired off a few rounds before jumping out the window and giving the Masonic signal of distress (as reported in Times & Seasons).<br /><br />Maybe showing the reality of the gunfight would have shattered the heart-tugging mood the filmmakers had created, but by omitting it they were unfaithful to history and failed to show Joseph as he really was: handy with a gun and able to defend himself. In fact, the impression the film gives is that Joseph was a nice guy, but also something of a milquetoast that everybody beat up, tossed in jail and eventually murdered in cold blood. He was far from that; Joseph was a disciplined and determined man who endured a lot of hardship and struggle to bring to fruition that in which he believed.<br /><br />See the film, but know going in that's it's cotton candy. Then get your meat and potatoes by reading a copy of Bushman's biography of Smith, Rough Stone Rolling <br /><br />PS: Church-produced films have no credits, but seasoned eyes can pick out a couple familiar faces. Rick Macy is excellent as Joseph Smith, Sr. and Bruce Newbold, beloved as Thomas in Finding Faith in Christ, here plays the cranky Methodist minister who failed to show Christian love to a young seeker after Truth. | 0neg
|
I feel the movie did not portray Smith historically. The goal of this movie was to tell Smith's life in a way that would be "comfortable" to the LDS Church leaders, historical accuracy seems to have been of little concern. The movie was designed to be a "faith promoting" experience, not a balanced view of Smith "as a man." I have taken it upon myself to study Smith's life and have read both LDS works and none LDS works. The movie, like most LDS projects, was beautifully filmed and well acted. However, this was not a realistic portrayal of either the beginnings of Mormonism or Smith's relatively short life.<br /><br />A significant period of time was given to reenacting an accident that Smith had when he was seven. While this event was no doubt important in forming his mental outlook, it appears that the main reason for including it in the film is to help establish a sympathetic view of Joseph Smith. Another point is in portraying Smith's teen years the film is silent regarding the Smith family's involvement in magical practices during the 1820's. Another problem is while the movie shows Joseph Smith good-naturedly entering into wrestling contests, it fails to show how he sometimes lost his temper and became violent.<br /><br />I could go on and on. This movie was not historical in any way and should be considered a fictional movie about a man. I would not recommend seeing this movie for any other purpose other then entertainment. | 0neg
|
For most younger viewers out there, they probably have no idea who Buster Keaton was. So, because of this, they probably won't feel nearly as sad when watching this film as I did. I happen to be a silent comedy freak--having see just about every Keaton film still in existence. My being a huge fan made this film very painful from start to finish. This is because during his silent days, Keaton was a very vibrant and creative comedian. He was amazing in his physicality and his films were almost never dull. However, in a move that movie historians still are baffled by, at the end of the silent era, Keaton gave up his independence and became a stock MGM actor. Instead of being a great creative force, MGM now saw Keaton solely as an actor--and they wrote scripts for him that had no respect for what made him great. At first, these films with MGM were not that bad (such as THE CAMERAMAN) but with talkies, the studio really blew it--putting him in several films with Jimmy Durante. Durante's humor was based on his gift for gab and was abrasive. Keaton, in contrast, was quiet and based on action. Two more unlike and incompatible actors would have been hard to find. As a result of this deadly combination, Keaton made some truly dreadful films.<br /><br />Now this isn't to say that SPEAK EASILY is a terrible film. No, instead it's just more of a time-passer and an amazingly unfunny one at that. In fact, if you go into the movie assuming it's a comedy, it will probably make the film harder to enjoy. Instead, it's sort of like a drama with a few comedic elements. It is NOT a film that will produce belly laughs--especially for Keaton fans.<br /><br />The film begins in an odd setting. Keaton is cast as a college professor whose entire life is teaching. He knows nothing of the world and has his nose stuck in his books. In a bizarre move, Keaton's servant tricks him into believing Keaton has received $750,000 from a dead relative--hoping that this would spur Keaton to get out and enjoy life. This is amazingly contrived but somehow it manages to work. Not terribly well, but it works.<br /><br />Keaton immediately leaves school and goes on a journey to New York to have some fun. On the way there, he meets up with an incredibly untalented theater troop. Because he knows nothing of the world, he doesn't seem to realize they stink. And, because he thinks he's rich, Keaton decides to take them all to New York to perform on Broadway. However, just before the show opens, his friends find out that Keaton is NOT rich. So, they decide not to tell Keaton and try to keep him away from process servers that want to close the show. They assume that if the show is a hit, then they can pay off the debts and everyone will be happy. However, they forget that the show itself stinks. What are they to do? And, will Keaton get the nice girl, get roped by a gold digger (Thelma Todd) or be flat broke and alone? If you care, see the film.<br /><br />As for Keaton, he has few stunts in the film, though there are some dandy ones near the end. Instead, Keaton just kind of walks through the part in a very subdued manner. There's really little to love about this film or hate. It's just blah....when it SHOULD have been a heck of a lot better. | 0neg
|
To be a Buster Keaton fan is to have your heart broken on a regular basis. Most of us first encounter Keaton in one of the brilliant feature films from his great period of independent production: 'The General', 'The Navigator', 'Sherlock Jnr'. We recognise him as the greatest figure in the entire history of film comedy, and we want to see more of his movies. Here the heartbreak begins. After 'Steamboat Bill Jnr', Keaton's brother-in-law Joseph Schenck pressured him into signing a contract that put Keaton under the control of MGM. Keaton became just one more actor for hire, performing someone else's scripts. Then his alcoholism got worse. After 'Steamboat Bill Jnr', Keaton never again made a truly first-rate film. A couple of sources describe a would-be masterpiece comedy that Keaton claimed he *almost* got to make at MGM: a parody of 'Grand Hotel'. Biographer Tom Dardis has offered convincing evidence that Keaton made up this story.<br /><br />The heartbreak increases because, among the many years of Keaton's long steady decline, he just occasionally came up with a good film ... such as his short comedy 'Grand Slam Opera'. I continue to search for the lost footage of Keaton's dramatic scene with Spencer Tracy in 'It's a Mad Mad World': a sequence in which embittered cop Tracy telephones an old retired crook (Keaton) and tries to recruit his assistance in stealing Smiler Grogan's cash. That footage is almost certainly gone forever, but I keep looking.<br /><br />'Speak Easily', alas, is one of Keaton's films from the beginning of his decline. MGM were trying to build up Jimmy Durante (who, coincidentally, played Smiler Grogan three decades later) as a new comedy star. Unfortunately, MGM tried to build up Durante by teaming him with Keaton, whose style of comedy was simply incompatible with Durante's. (I'm a fan of both.) Throughout his career, Durante was a merciless scene-stealer: commendably, he knew that he was being built up at Keaton's expense, and Keaton was the only co-star whom Durante never attempted to upstage.<br /><br />Keaton was often cast as the victim of extremely cruel machinations. In 'Speak Easily', he plays a didactic and humourless Midwestern college professor named Post (because he's as wooden as one) who receives a letter informing him that he's inherited $750,000, which he must travel to New York City to claim. Does he make a 'phone call to verify this? Does he even check the postmark? No; he takes his life's savings out of the bank and rushes to New York. As soon as he's gone, Post's manservant confesses that he wrote the (fake) letter to jostle Professor Post out of his rut!<br /><br />Post, who thinks he's a 3/4-millionaire, crosses paths with Jimmy Dodge (Durante), who's trying to produce a musical revue but hasn't any money. The characters which these two brilliant comedians are playing onscreen simply fail to intermesh. Keaton is playing one of those eggheads (like Mister Logic in 'Viz') who intellectualises everything. Durante plays one of those annoying hepcats who is incapable of making any straightforward statement because the script requires him always to speak in slang. There's a painfully unfunny dialogue scene in which Durante is trying to talk to Keaton about money, but - instead of coming straight out with it - Durante has to use increasingly contrived slang terms like 'kale', 'cartwheels' and so forth ... while Keaton of course has no idea what Durante's on about. I'll give Keaton credit: his own dry and dusty prairie voice, his flat Kansas accent, is absolutely perfect for the character he's playing here.<br /><br />Sidney Toler, looking much leaner and more handsome here than he would be just a year later, is impressive as the excitable director of the revue bankrolled (on tick) by Professor Post. Henry Armetta, whom I've never found funny, is even less funny than usual here, offering a running gag with a stupid payoff. Thelma Todd impressed me here, in a more villainous version of the role she played in 'Horse Feathers' (a much funnier movie). Edward Brophy, one of my favourite character actors, is wasted.<br /><br />Part of the problem with 'Speak Easily' is that supporting characters behave in completely inappropriate ways. Keaton's lawyer shows up at Durante's theatre with an urgent message for Keaton ... but he isn't there, so the lawyer proceeds to divulge Keaton's personal business to the first total stranger he meets. (Fire that lawyer, Buster!) In another scene, Professor Post - the guy who's perceived as bankrolling this musical - blunders into the chorus girls' changing room, and all the chorus girls immediately squeal and cover themselves. I know for a fact that *modern* chorus girls would never react this way, and I seriously doubt that chorus girls in 1932 behaved that way either ... certainly not in response to the 'angel' controlling their show's pursestrings.<br /><br />SPOILERS COMING. About half an hour into the unfunny 'Speak Easily', the great Jimmy Durante seats himself at the piano, grins into the camera, and does that distinctive little shake of his head as he starts to play a tune. This is the moment when I thought that, at long last, this movie was finally going to settle down to its purpose of entertaining us. Alas, no. Most annoying of all is the ending of this film, which uses the single most hackneyed and implausible cliche in all of comedy: the one in which an utterly incompetent dimwit becomes a star comedian through his own ineptitude. (Keaton would be forced to replay this cliche in a 1955 episode of 'Screen Directors Playhouse'; Chaplin had already used it in 'The Circus'.)<br /><br />I very nearly wept - in anger and sorrow - at the wasted opportunities in 'Speak Easily'. Mostly out of respect for the work that Keaton, Durante, Toler, Brophy and Miss Todd have done elsewhere, I'll rate this movie 2 points out of 10.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
What is the most harrowing movie ever made? The gynaecological nightmare of 'Cries and Whispers'? The acid psychodramas of Fassbinder? The discomfiting black comedy of 'Last House on the left? I'm sure for that portion of the film-loving public that tie their masts to the good ship Buster Keaton, there is only one answer - any one of his sound films. <br /><br />I don't know what flayed my soul more poignantly in this movie - the grounding of Keaton's intricate and expansive physical art to humdrum slapstick; the painful hesitation of this master filmmaker with dialogue - not that he hasn't a lovely, comic voice, or that he can't make dialogue funny; it's just that the studio don't seem to have given him enough takes, and so he seems to be trying to remember his lines before he delivers, which only makes him - Keaton, not his character, look silly; or is it the humiliation of seeing Keaton caught up in a tawdry sex farce, when he has given us some of the richest accounts of romantic frustration in film? <br /><br />No, I know what was most disturbing - having to watch Buster Keaton, cinema's greatest comedian, sit aside to observe Jimmy Durante doing his schtick. It is horrors such as this that get yer Dantes composing yer Infernos.<br /><br />MGM seem to have got the curious idea that the best way to adapt Keaton to sound was to turn him into a Marx Brother, complete with verbal pedantry, elaborate, tedious 'clowning', shambolic slapstick, theatrical setting, triumph through chaos, and Thelma Todd. Keaton was just not that sort of comic, and where Groucho's malicious tongue and gleeful opportunism might just have made this plot work, Buster's socially inept professor can't, he is too studied and predictable. <br /><br />What Buster needed was to be allowed experiment like Lang in 'M', or Rene Clair; he would never have tried to hold back the tide like Chaplin. When a film like 'The General' is alluded to - messing about with trains - the loss becomes even more apparent. <br /><br />And the thing is, in patches amid the flat direction, the film isn't all that bad - there is an excellent jolt when a camera on the bus leaves Keaton alone at a railway station; and the denouement, if hardly original, is at least livelier than what went before. There is something almost endearing about the way Keaton slows down a plot that needs all the zip it can get. <br /><br />There is a film in here about loneliness, emotionally paralysing order, the numbing effects of education etc., struggling to get out. The best way to appreciate this film is to watch not the narrative of Professor TZ Post, but of emasculated genius Buster Keaton, trapped in a prison of mediocrity, confounded by new technology, mocked by a malevolent fate (in this case the studio), retaining a stoical grace. Looked at like that, it becomes a kind of masterpiece. | 0neg
|
Watching "Speak Easily" is painful for fans of Buster Keaton. Seeing such a phenomenal writer, actor, comic, director, and stunt man subjected to this humiliating spectacle is like seeing a Picasso used as a drop cloth, or perhaps more like seeing the finest Camembert adulterated with whey solids and processed into Cheez-Whiz. <br /><br />Keaton is ill-cast as Professor Post, whose overblown vocabulary is the only thing keeping him from saying, "Tell me about the rabbits, George." (Post would have said something like, "Kindly inform me as to the status of the small mammals in the family Leporidae of the order Lagomorpha, kind sir, who I believe is primarily addressed with the epithet 'George'.") When Keaton created his own characters, they might be situationally clueless but they weren't stupid. They were quick studies and became masters of their worlds. Not so with Post, who never stops stumbling and bumbling and who who has no more control of his destiny than a bilge rat had of the Titanic. And while Keaton's original characters had a charming naiveté and innocence, Post comes across as such a profound sexual retardate that if he ever did become physically aroused, he'd put an ice bag on the swelling and seek medical help. <br /><br />There are a couple of small, redeeming moments, such as Keaton's attempts to get rid of the vampish Thema Todd or his suggestion as to appropriate attire for a Greek dance, but it's just not worth enduring the entire film to see them.<br /><br />If you're a fan of bad movies, get drunk and watch "Speak Easily" with friends, a la "Mystery Science Theater 3000". But other than that, stick with the silents. Let them be 100% of what Buster Keaton is remembered for. | 0neg
|
T.Z. Post, college professor, receives a false letter stating he inherited $750,000. Now with financial means, he withdraws his life savings of $4,000, and decides to finally going out & live. After having his baggage sent on a train to Chicago, he meets a traveling vaudeville troupe, and decides there good enough for him to put on a show on Broadway. The night of the show, poor Prof. Post has to hide from his creditors, settle the relationship woes between girlfriend Pansy and & floozy diva Eleanor, and still make sure the show must go on. After watching many of Keaton's silent gems, this one is a pain to sit through, but I felt, it could have been a lot worse. Supporting cast Durante, Todd, & Selwyn come off very annoying at times, but still likeable. A pre-Charlie Chan Toler is good as the frustrated show director. 90% of the script is badly written as MGM is trying to pass this off as a poor man's Marx Bros. film where many of the sight gags fall flat from the beginning. Compiled with Keaton's drinking problems at the time, this movie just is a sad moment in Buster's life. Rating- 3. | 0neg
|
I watched full house when I was younger and I can not understand why I did. I don't remember really enjoying the show. I think I and the majority of Americans watching this were hypnotized by its badness. It will put you in a trance state and there is no going back. I am still scarred but I try to move on. I know it's a family show but that does not mean it has to be SO bad. The show is SO cliché with every episode ending with a "talk" from the dad to make everyone's problems go away. The characters on the show are all loathsome. There is a know it all, cleaning obsessed, corny father who you want to punch in the face every time he comes on screen. We then have a supposed "rocker" uncle that is just there to look pretty for the moms that have to watch this crap. We have another uncle who is completely unfunny who does lame Bullwinkle impressions (need I say more about him). There is the eldest daughter who can not act and is always whining about something. Then a middle daughter who always says, "HOW RUDE!" to pretty much everything anyone says. Finally, there is the youngest daughter Michelle. Do not get me started on Michelle played but the horrible actors known as The Olsen Twins. If you believe in Christianity I guess you would associate her with the antichrist. She is always demanding things, trying too hard to be "cute", is constantly saying "DUH!" and rolling her eyes which makes you want to smack her. I am not a big fan of using a lot of physical abuse as punishment to children. But in her case, I would make an acceptation. She needed it on a daily basis. She is the most selfish character to ever be introduced to mainstream television. One example of this is when her rocker uncle is busy doing his job in the attic. The brat decides to constantly annoy him and demand attention. He yells at her and she gets upset. POOR BABY! The rest of the episode is catering to her emotional needs and the uncle eventually apologizes to her. UGGHH! The show will lower your IQ along with slowly destroying your will to live. I am surprised we don't hear in the news about full house being played in the background when police find people that have committed suicide. Do yourself a favor and do not watch reruns of the show. You will thank me later. | 0neg
|
Seriously. This is one of the most stupid family shows of all time.<br /><br />Plot- A family without a mother and 3 "dads" raise 3 little girls in San Francisco, California.<br /><br />Characters- Neat freak Danny, cartoon loving Joey, hair obsessed Jesse, spoiled brat Michelle, stupid DJ, and almost normal Stephanie. The creators of this show really want you to hate the characters, don't they? <br /><br />Therefore, I do not think anyone should watch this show. I only chuckled at a few moments in the show's whole running, and I think that instead of lethal injection, all criminals should be forced to watch this show, a torture far worse than anything else.<br /><br />1.5/10 or: D | 0neg
|
It has very bad acting. Bad story lines. Bad characters. You should never see this show If you see it on. TURN IT OFF. Or you be cringing for the next 30 minutes. It should have never been aired. It's not great. You should never see it. NEVER EVER EVER. So now, if you ever wanna watch this show, please don't. Turn to the THE CW for Smallville. Or Disney Channel for Hannah Montana, Wizards Of Waverly Place, or Nick for Drake & Josh, Those are much better family shows. So believe me on this, I've watched it before. and It is honestly, and I say Honestly, the worst show I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of TV. So do me a favor, and never watch this show. | 0neg
|
The acting is bad ham, ALL the jokes are superficial and the target audience is clearly very young children, assuming they have below average IQs. I realize that it was meant for kids, but so is Malcom in the Middle, yet they still throw in adult humor and situations.<br /><br />What should we expect from a show lead by Bob Saget, the only comedian in existence who is less funny than a ball hitting a man's groin, which is probably why he stopped hosting America's Funniest Home Videos.<br /><br />Parents, do not let your kids watch this show unless you want to save money on college. Expose your kids to stupidity and they will grow up dumberer. | 0neg
|
I can see little girls enjoying this show, but calling this a family show is ridiculous. I'm amazed how well remembered it is after all these years. It's an extremely unfunny and stupid show about widowed father of three living with his dead wife's brother and his stupid friend from school, and others as the seasons go on. All of the plot lines generally have a really dumb lesson. In the middle of each episode somebody is mad at somebody else and each episode they make up and it ends on a light unfunny joke. As for the actors, I didn't like them either. Bob Saget was painfully unfunny as the dad with the mom responsibilities. Dave Coulier is a one note joke 30 something year old that does cartoon voices and acts like a kid, and he's horrid. John Stamos was the most tolerable character but he was so clichéd it was hard to watch him. The oldest girl, DJ, on the show was a genuinely bad actress and showed no emotion ever. The middle girl Stephanie was too clichéd as the annoying little sister. The youngest girl Michelle showed what bad actresses the Olsen twins were. You can always tell when they are switching them off. The plot lines to too many story lines were so unrealistically stupid it's cringe worthy. This is a "family" show that tried to replace any good substance with cuteness and love, and though those are needed for a show about a family they overdid it way too much. This will be remembered as my least favorite sit-com from the 80's and 90's.<br /><br />My rating: Terrible show. TVG 30 mins. | 0neg
|
What a crime...<br /><br />You forgot to brush your teeth...let's make a 30 minute show about it and have a couple of kids make some noise and then have the dad lecture them all because that's what he has to do.<br /><br />But, don't forget Uncle Joey has to make some weird noises and cooky faces, then Uncle Jesse has to show up with his black leather jacket and some jeans and look pretty for a few minutes while everybody discusses how Mother would have done things if she were around..<br /><br />Yep, full of zany little adventures about a whole bunch of nothing and an entire overlong story to build around it.<br /><br />Full House will not only bore you to tears, but it will make you age twenty times faster than you normally would. | 0neg
|
Full House is one of the worst TV series ever! Why?Because all the characters are so irritating that it's impossible to bear.The best character is Joey an even he is pretty irritating occasionally.An that girl DJ,who wrote her character?I want to kill my self every time she speaks.Not to mention when Danny start's with his philosophy.<br /><br />Example: DJ won around ten thousand dollars or more in the casino.However,she's not eighteen so she shouldn't gamble according to law.However the casino was ready to pay her the money but then Danny,her father cought's her and don't let's her raise that money because she is not eighteen.Oh come on,give me a break,will ya?Since i've seen that stupid and childish scene i instantly turned off the television.Some of the thing's they say in this series not even a child would bought.Who in the world could think that Full House is entertaining and funny?Every single word they say in this series seem's like Shakespeare wrote it.Except that Shakespere knew how to write and except that he wouldn't be that childish and stupid to write something as stupid as they wrote in the script for the Full House! <br /><br />For everyone who has a bad heart or any kind of bad medical condition or any will for life or any sense of the real world,i deeply recommend 'Do not watch the Full House'!Not even one episode as a try out.Avoid this series.Save your self from stupidity and nonsense.This is the worst television show ever!I'd rather watch Teletubbies then this.'Do not watch this'. | 0neg
|
I hated this crap, every Friday as part of tgif it was on, and consistently sucked big time with stupidity each and every week. If you want to see something funny go watch "No On Would Tell" Starring Candice Cameron and Fred Savage, it really is hilarious, shows exactly why no one ever goes on to a good film career after doing a terrible TV show. This show really makes me sick, I hate those kids, and bob saget needs to go jump off a bridge for ever making this crapfest. I've seen funner stuff everywhere else but here. I AHet writing 10 lines! Watch 'full house' to see the least humanity has to offer in the way of arts and entertainment. | 0neg
|
When I was younger, I liked this show, but now...BLECCH!!! This show is sappy, badly written, and rarely funny. The three leads were all good actors and funny men (Saget's stand up was a lot better than the stuff this show came up with, as was Coulier a better stand up, and Stamos was a better than average actor). After a while, Stamos wanted off the show because it wanted to do more serious stuff (who could blame him?). The show eventually got cancelled when many of the actors demanded more money.<br /><br />Here are a few things that drive me crazy about the show:<br /><br />1. The catch phrases- How many times can one person put up with tiring catch phrases like with 'how rude', 'you got it dude', 'nerdbomber', 'cut it out' and 'have mercy' in a 24 hour time period? <br /><br />2. Kimmy Gibler- the most annoying character ever written for television.<br /><br />3. The writing- stale and cliched as an oreo cookie. There is good cliched writing and bad cliched writing. Full House had bad cliched writing.<br /><br />4. Three men living together in San Francisco- Enough said.<br /><br />5. Unrealistic stuff- Too much to recall.<br /><br />6. Trendy kids- The girls had all the latest mall fashions and you can see posters of trendy recording artists they would be into.<br /><br />Now this show is on Nick @ Nite. I would hardly call it a classic. I have nothing bad to say about the people involved since I think many of them are talented in their own right. But this show was just so sugary sweet, I couldn't stand it after a while. | 0neg
|
This show is just annoying!!! I feel sorry for the actors for having to attempt to be funny (especially Bob Saget), the laugh track tries to cover up the sad jokes and the "Awwww" track comes up at the most unnecessary times. The over-dramatic kids are no exception, especially the Olsen twins. Also, this show is cliché city. If you were to look up the word cliché, it would read "Full House" Every story line has a "life lesson" to be learned at the end. A sappy speech makes everything better and even has the ability to make the most bratty child have a sudden realization of goodness GASP too bad this couldn't be possible in real life. I don't know how someone could watch this show without bad mouthing the behavior of the characters or the laugh track. i find myself yelling at the TV saying, "THAT Isn't FUNNY/SAD/CUTE" If life were really like this, the world would fall apart. | 0neg
|
WARNING! This review will reveal the ending of the movie, "Scoop." If you don't want to know how the movie ends, don't read this review!<br /><br />"Scoop" is so bad you'll think "Annie Hall" was a fluke.<br /><br />It gets one star because you get to see Hugh Jackman's naked chest. That's the only thing "Scoop" has going for it.<br /><br />Woody Allen's misogyny, and his fixation on women young enough, at this point, to be his granddaughter, has crippled any ability to make movies he may have had at any point.<br /><br />The plot seems promising: a ghost, Ian McShane, directs a fluffy headed student, Scarlett Johansson, to investigate whether or not an English Lord, Hugh Jackman, is the notorious Tarot Card Killer of prostitutes. A magician, Woody Allen, helps the girl.<br /><br />Promising plot notwithstanding, the movie completely lacks charm, or humor, or atmosphere. It's an amazingly leaden, amateurish effort for someone who has made even one previous film, never mind dozens. Perhaps Allen has had a stroke that has gone unreported in the press.<br /><br />Much is made of the fact that unlike in his previous films, Woody Allen, now a septuagenarian, has FINALLY allowed a younger male lead to get the girl.<br /><br />Not so. In fact, the plot is constructed in such a way so that the girl gets no one.<br /><br />There is an early scene where Johansson, for no reason central to the movie, allows herself to be gotten drunk, and seduced, by a powerful, older director. "Seduced" is a euphemism for what happens. It's a "slam, bam, I've gotta go" kind of moment. It bears no relation to the plot whatsoever, and it cheapens Johansson in the viewer's eye. Why did Allen add that unnecessary scene to the movie? Because it shows a powerful director - like Allen - having sex with the female lead. Allen gets to have his cake and eat it, too.<br /><br />Johansson is not yet an actress. She doesn't know how to command the screen except by wearing a tight, low cut top. She imitates Allen in a couple of scenes, and that just looks weird and sad.<br /><br />It doesn't help that her character is scripted as a doll who can't function without a ghost, or an elderly and less than awe-inspiring magician, telling her what to do at every turn.<br /><br />She is approximately half Jackman's age, and she comes across as a very vapid screen presence in their scenes together.<br /><br />Audience members not obsessed with breasts deserve better in their heroines, and Jackman deserves better, too -- a script that gives the heroine some intelligence and agency, and an actress who can convey those qualities.<br /><br />Hugh Jackman is similarly cheated by the script. Allen apparently can't stand it that Jackman is so stunningly good looking and young, and so he gives Jackman nothing to say or do. Like Johansson, he is used merely for his good looks. This is a shame, because, as Jackman has shown in any number of productions, from "Oklahoma" to "X Men," he CAN act.<br /><br />Here's the big plot twist -- Jackman, suave, charming English Lord, really is a killer. So, though the movie says it is all about letting someone else, other than Allen, get the girl, she doesn't get anyone. Jackman, the man she's been making love to, is a man who murdered a prostitute. Nice, Woody. Nice way to punish your heroine for being beyond your grasp.<br /><br />In a passive aggressive touch, Allen deprives his heroine of his own presence, as well, killing off his character, the magician, leaving Scarlett Johansson all alone at the end of the film.<br /><br />A final note: at my screening, not a single audience member laughed at any point during the film. Always a bad sign when a film is advertised as a comedy. | 0neg
|
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of many of Woody's movies, obviously his late 70's masterpieces (Annie Hall,Interiors, Manhattan)and most of his late 80's/early 90's dramas (Hannah, Crimes and Misdemeaners,Husbands and Wives) in fact I even liked some of his more recent efforts (Melinda, Anything Else, Small Time Crooks) but this was abysmal, I though it couldn't possibly be any worse than last years Match Point but how wrong I was.<br /><br />It was lazily plotted - basically a cross between Match Point, Manhattan Murder Mystery and Small Time Crooks,with all the jokes taken out - Woody seems to be on the way out as well, slurring most of his lines and delivering 'hilarious' catchphrases 'I mean that with all due respect...' over and over until the blandness of it all becomes to much to bare.<br /><br />I know that most actors are queuing up to work with him but they should at least read the script first - Scarlett Johansson and Hugh Jackman are so much better than this - and Woody should really take a more behind the camera role in future, if he has any sense about 20 miles behind it.<br /><br />It wouldn't be so tragic if we didn't have so many great Woody films to compare this to - but it is clear that his best days are behind him and judging by this effort, Woody should call it a day before he becomes an industry joke.<br /><br />Embarrassingly bad | 0neg
|
My wife and I both thought this film a watered-down, made-for-TV (BBC) version of Manhattan Murder Mystery...which is itself good, but not great. The story has little inter- character tension or chemistry, and not much of a plot. Woody Allen's character just sort of wanders around running off at the mouth, and Hugh Jackman and Scarlett Johannsson don't have a lot more to do. It's pretty disappointing, I must say. Ian McShane's role is just an expanded cameo appearance. <br /><br />The first thing that occurred to me was "I wonder how much the BBC had to pay Woody Allen to dislodge him from Manhatttan?" He must've needed the money, and they must have needed his appeal to expand their audience beyond the youth market drawn to the two stars. I'm giving this movie 4 stars instead of 3 because it is unbothersome background noise. If you ever want something to have on while you're knitting or sorting your stamp collection, this'll do the job. I wouldn't pay to rent it again. | 0neg
|
Err...this movie sucked. A LOT.<br /><br />I have been reading some of the other reviews. Apparently there are a lot of people that think that anything Woody Allen writes or stars in is automatically good...<br /><br />I have watched several of his films, in the vain hope that I'm missing something. But no, they just suck. Poorly written trash. The characters are all very stereotypical (not to mention rather stupid). The plot is...I think it is supposed to be mysterious. Not sure on that. Mr. Allen's character is...Woody Allen, on any other film you have seen of his.<br /><br />If you are a fan of Woody Allen, go see this film. If you are under 50, don't bother. (If you are a fan of Woody Allen AND you are under 50...well, you are atypical. I don't know what to say.) | 0neg
|
This is a poor film by any standard. The story in Match Point had a certain intrigue, and the direction and writing a certain fascination (Woody Allen mixing his own culture with that of the classic English murder and exploring what can be done with it).<br /><br />Scoop, however has none of this. It is poorly written, the two leads are hopelessly wooden and the story itself has no interest at all. The genre that it spoofs requires at least some sort of subplot with witty explanations and tie-ups (why are tarot cards and keys kept under French horns in locked rooms?).<br /><br />Allen's delightful and witty versions of various Hollywood genres (Curse of the Jade Scorpion/Purple Rose of Cairo etc) have given us so much pleasure over the years. Even Hollywood Ending had a great central idea. Sadly his inspiration has deserted him this time. | 0neg
|
The movie seems disjointed and overall, poorly written. The screenplay moves along as if 10 different people wrote it, and none of them were communicating with each other. Apparently they wanted to take a page from a Miracle on 34th Street (the original) type film, but it is done in such a poor way that the movie falls apart. This film is for only the very young, and even THEY will see the fact that whoever scripted it knows little to nothing about baseball. Such as: <br /><br /> When the Angels are in dead last place, the owner doesn't seem to care, nor is he bothered by the fact his manager just got into a fight with his pitcher ON THE MOUND or that he PUNCHED the team's play by play announcer on live TV. However, when the team is one game from winning the Division, he gets bent out of shape over a story (sourced by a 6 year old) that the manager is getting help from a kid who claims to see real angels. What sounds worse? A losing violent out of control manager whose team has lost 15 in a row? Or a winning coach on the verge of the playoffs that is acting a bit eccentric and is helping foster kids? The owner's reaction makes no sense. And he's moved to change his mind by Maggie and her 'straight out of cliché land' speech during a news conference.<br /><br /> The Angels are supposed to be playing for the Division in the final weekend series against the White Sox, however at the end of the game the announcer's keep saying the Angels 'won the pennant". The pennant is not decided until someone wins the LEAGUE championship, not the regular season division title.<br /><br /> Whitt Bass, the goofball pitcher is the starting pitcher and wins the game that breaks the Angels losing streak then is the starting pitcher THE VERY NEXT DAY.<br /><br /> Mel Clark (Tony Danza) is said in the ninth inning to have thrown 156 pitches, in a low-scoring ballgame. Typically in low scoring games, the pitch count is MUCH lower than this, usually around 80-90 pitches.<br /><br /> "AL" the angel says at the end "Championships have to be won on their own", even though he and his angels have been manipulating and fixing games throughout the whole second half of the season.<br /><br />I could go on and on, as there are MANY other examples where the story is poorly written.<br /><br />For younger kids (under 10), this movie may be entertaining. It's too bad done right this could have been a classic. Done wrong like this and it's a forgettable mess that will forever live as a UHF/cable Saturday Morning washout. | 0neg
|
I know that actors and actresses like to try different kinds of movies - hey, no one wants to get typecast - but Danny Glover, Brenda Fricker (happy birthday, Brenda!) and Christopher Lloyd should have known better than this. "Angels in the Outfield" is another movie in which everything seems lost until someone or something magically comes and saves the day. Do I even need to tell you how it ends? The movie is just plain lowly escapism (examples of high escapism are the various sci-fi movies from the '50s). If these movies had some political undertone - or at least offered us a new look at life - then they would be OK; this one is just pointless. Far closer to diabolical than angelic. Also starring Tony Danza, Adrien Brody and Matthew McConaughey, and I suspect that they don't wish to stress this in their resumes. | 0neg
|
Warning! Spoilers!<br /><br />This is your typical disney film.<br /><br />1.Policticly correct what with the foster home that has an even divison of races.<br /><br />2.Insults the viewers intellect with its simplistic lines.<br /><br />3.The boy's slezy father is almost directly taken from the Never Ending Story 2.<br /><br />4.In a world full of crime,disase,corruption,starvation and other proplems that need to be taken care of,only a losing team is worthy of divine intervention.UGHHHH!!!<br /><br />5.Did you know that angels don't like swearing?! Where the heck did that come from!<br /><br />6.In helping the team,the angel cause pain and humilation on the opposing team.Very angelic indeed!<br /><br />7.The team the angels are helping are called...can you guess...THE ANGELS! Disney at its worst!<br /><br />8."Just got his training wings." Brillent line!<br /><br />My conculsion:I did not like it at all. | 0neg
|
Naming the absolutely most pathetic piece of crap in cinematic history is not an easy task, candidates being so abundant, but Nemesis 2 has been my personal favorite ever since I saw it. It was so funny we had to rent it again the next day, and again I laughed so hard I was literally rolling on the floor. (This usually only happens when I see Monty Python's "Scott of the Antarctic".)<br /><br />Throughout the whole movie, an overwhelming what-the-heck-feeling firmly grasps the viewer. I'm utterly confounded that this clumsy home video ever made it to production stage. It's supposed to be a sequel, yet has no apparent connection whatsoever with the first film. The hero has the same name, but this time "Alex" is female, although it took us half way into the movie to stop guessing, what with all the muscles and the barbarian-nomad outfit!<br /><br />There is really no plot at all, it's merely a prolonged chase scene, only it's so slow-paced and senseless that calling it a chase scene makes it sound way more interesting than it really is. There is almost no dialogue, which is just as well considering the quality of it, and then the film suddenly just comes to an abrupt end after a blatant action scene with lots of gasoline explosions, without ever really explaining what it was all about. Luckily, it never gets boring, because there's something silly and phony going on at all times!<br /><br />Terrible movies are usually just tedious, but Nemesis 2 is such a perfect mixture of over-seriousness and utter nonintentional wackiness that it's truly entertaining. Rent this film, or buy it even, you won't be disappointed! | 0neg
|
I saw this movie in a theater in Chicago and should have enjoyed it, since I love Nemesis
but if the first half an hour is skillfully done, the rest is just sub-Predator video fodder, a long chase through those post-modern empty factories Pyun affectionnates. My girlfriend fell asleep. I still like Pyun though, but not this | 0neg
|
And that is the only reason I posses this DVD. Now I haven't seen the first Nemesis film, but I did check the info out of it and I here by say: What? Why? Because in the first film Alex was male. But then again the first one was set in the future, so maybe this Alex is brand new one and the scientist just happened to make Alex female this time. Who knows, at least it wasn't addressed in the film in any way.<br /><br />Here's a quick summary of the plot: Alex, still a baby then (or how ever you want, as it was, is, in the future) escapes with her mom using a special time vessel and ends up in the 80's Africa. There mommy gets killed and Alex (Sue Price) grows up in a African tribe. Then the tribe gets slaughtered by a cyborg from the future and Alex then runs and hides and finally she kills the cyborg. So there. Does sound familiar, doesn't it?.<br /><br />Terminator isn't the only film being ripped here, Predator gets its fair share too and I think the first Fly movie, the Vincent Price one, gets special nomination for giving a solid base to build up your cyborgs head from.<br /><br />Lets see, what else? Okay, the film was quite standard small budget flick, but it did have bad special effects for a mid 90's film. It would have looked okay for a 80's flick how ever. Biggest problem is the plot. Things just happen and the viewer is barely interested. Nemesis 2 isn't the crappiest piece of cinema I've had pleasure (?) to watch but it does come damn close.<br /><br />I won't say a thing about acting, because let's be honest here: did anyone expect Oscar worthy performances here? Oh well... at least I did find Sue Price hot in that amazonian warrior way.<br /><br />A "real" movie rating: 2/10 There isn't a lot of pros about the over all quality. And despite of the very basic plot the film it self makes very little sense.<br /><br />A camp movie rating: 4/10 I did get occasional laughs from the sheer badness of the film, so it does have small merits in it. | 0neg
|
Years have past since Alex Rain (played by Olivier Gruner in the first movie) stumbled onto the horrific plot that involved replacing humans with machines however since then a war between cyborgs and humans has emerged and we lost, now a superwoman of sorts who is the daughter of Olivier Gruner's character (She also inherits only half of his minimal acting ability) which I think is the films minimal connection to the first, however when the superwoman is created she hides in 1980 while a bounty hunter from the future hunts her down in this confusing sci-fi clunker. Nemesis became a cult hit, that I can see why people liked even though I was no fan of said film. Nemesis tried very ambitiously to come up with different ideas, develop a beautiful look and provide tons of action, it almost worked. Nemesis 2 doesn't even have that ambition, it's a cheap rip off of The Terminator with a muscled female who is so low on acting ability she makes Olivier Gruner seem like a master thespian and the action sequences lack the explosive scope that was the main selling point of the original. I'll admit I was no fan of the original but it deserved a better follow up than this. The original also featured a good cast like Tim Thomerson, Cary Hiroyuki Tagawa, Thom Mathews, Brion James, Thomas Jane and yes Jackie Earle Haley this one features nobody and this time it's just a dull movie with a pretentious vibe. In fact after I saw this, it inspired to add a half star to the original.<br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad) | 0neg
|
If this is the first of the "Nemesis" films that you have seen, then I strongly urge you to proceed no further. The sequels to "Nebula" prove to be no better...hard to believe considering this entry is bottom-of-the-barrel. This movie tries, but it's just not worth your time, folks. Take a nap instead. | 0neg
|
I really wanted to love this show. I truly, honestly did.<br /><br />For the first time, gay viewers get their own version of the "The Bachelor". With the help of his obligatory "hag" Andra, James, a good looking, well-to-do thirty-something has the chance of love with 15 suitors (or "mates" as they are referred to in the show). The only problem is half of them are straight and James doesn't know this. If James picks a gay one, they get a trip to New Zealand, and If he picks a straight one, straight guy gets $25,000. How can this not be fun?! Take my hand, lets stroll: <br /><br />The most glaring problem with this show is the bachelor himself. James is your typical young and successful gay guy with a nice smile and body, the one you'd probably give two glances towards at your local bar before grazing for greener pastures. Why they chose to cast James as the leading man is beyond me. God knows there's so many other hotter and vivacious homosexual men out there dying to be on TV.<br /><br />Aside from his rather average physical appearance, James is about as interesting and exciting as a piece of chalk. Even as such, he has this arrogant, smugly condescending aura about him. However, if James were standing up against a blank, white wall he'd meld right into in it. I honestly can't recall a single interesting or noteworthy thing James said during the course of the show. He is THAT boring and forgettable. In fact, one of the mates flat out advised him he wasn't feeling a connection. I thought that was the best part of the show. Also, James speaks with an excruciatingly annoying lilt. Sound feminine or sound masculine, but don't ****ing segue tones in the middle of sentences...so painful to sit through. I hated him so much all throughout the show I kept thinking, "Please choose a straight guy and humiliate yourself and your unfortunate looking hag"<br /><br />Then we have the suitors. A remarkably bland bunch of men who don't seem to care either way what is happening. Equally vapid, they seem to be indistinguishable from one guy to the next except, "Hey that guy has blond highlights or oh that one has curly hair" Again, astoundingly inept casting decisions seem to be the aim of this show. While it may be hackneyed to type cast roles, it would've been a lot more entertaining to watch than these amorphous drones. However, in all their banality they still manage to upstage James (which isn't all that hard to do anyway), slightly that is. You know you have a problem when some of the suitors are actually hotter and more interesting than the leading man. And the fact that the suitors seem to have more fun around EACH OTHER than with the leading man? Very sad.<br /><br />Also, I just thought that Id point something mentioned on the message boards which I felt was actually true: the straight men are all hotter than the gay guys. <br /><br />Don't get me wrong, Im not saying all the gay guys were ugly and boring, as a matter of fact I found some of them very cute. It's just that overall they were just BLAH compared to the men you'd see on shows like A Shot At Love with Tila Tequila or The Bachelorette.<br /><br />I don't know how many times I hit fast forward during this show. I can accept a lead character as interesting as a cardboard box, I can accept the mundane, apathetic suitors but PLEASE for the love of God entertain me just a little. No such luck.<br /><br />If you're expecting drama, intrigue, sexiness, or excitement you will be SEVERELY disappointed. The biggest "drama" comes from the fact that one of the suitors still may have a boyfriend in New York (How scandalous!). As titillating as that may be I guarantee you, that is the ONLY thing that remotely resembles any conflict on this show.<br /><br />Sure there is the twist, but if you have any semblance of Gaydar in you, you'll easily discern who's who (it wasn't hard at all, I was only wrong once.) This show is stacking so much of its chips on the twist that it fails to deliver anywhere else.<br /><br />We get to watch as James & Co plod along such exciting activities such as learning how to Western step dance, shopping for gifts, visiting a petting zoo, and gay karaoke. YAWN. Sure you have the occasional topless dancing but who cares when everyone is boring anyway. That's one of main problems with the show: NO ONE seems to be enjoying themselves--they are there just going through the motion trying mightily hard to appear to have a good time. And you really cant blame them since the events are all wildly unimaginative and lame.<br /><br />Finally, the physical aspect is not there. There's no cuddling, no caressing, no kissing (!), no endearment of any sort. It's just "Ok that was a boring date, Im gonna go back to my ugly, tacky wanna-be Sydney Operahouse dwelling (quick peck on the lips) CYA." This show is so ****ing prudish it's ridiculous. I can understand them not wanting to play up the perceived indiscretionary nature of homosexual men, but come the **** on. People who watch reality TV shows are gonna want more than standoffish hugs and curt kisses. This show refuses to compromise.<br /><br />Sorry if this was long winded but I felt these were issues that needed to be addressed. I do commend Bravo for first putting up a show of this nature, but the staggeringly incompetent manner in which this show was handled is mind boggling. To summarize my three points: Boring + Boring + Boring = go do something else. You'll have more fun waiting at a doctor's office for an appointment, at least they have interesting magazines there. | 0neg
|
The recent boom of dating show on U. S. television screens has reached a fevered pitch since the first episode of "The Bachelor." Unsuspecting audiences have since been subjected to countless clones and variations, including "The Bachelorette", "Joe Millionaire", "For Love Or Money", and the execrable "Married By America." Hoping to cash in on this trend, and simultaneously tap and exploit a new demographic, Bravo has unleashed the disastrous "Boy Meets Boy" upon the world. And may they have mercy on us all.<br /><br />The premise is simple and is designed to be light-hearted: an eligible gay man is courted by a number of suitors, eliminated show by show until one is left, but there's a twist. Half of the men are actually straight. This is not much of a big deal, but the inherent viciousness of the scenario kicks in after hearing the pay-off: if, at the end of the show, the gay man picks a straight man in disguise, the straight man wins a cash prize. The gay man gets nothing, or at least nothing more than a few parting gifts, a pat on the back, and a hearty round of "Aren't you embarrassed? Well, thanks for playing!"<br /><br />Just the like the equally painful "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" (another Bravo program), this show is another example of stereotypes run amok. What makes it even worse, though, is the fact that straight men are playing UP these stereotypes for cash. The producers of this show believe that all you have to do is put enough hair gel in a man's hair, dress up in Abercrombie & Fitch with a pair of designer sandals, strip him of all body hair and fat and voila! It's the gay equivalent to putting a white performer in blackface, and just as offensive to those of us -- like myself -- who are genuinely gay and don't dress/act like that. It implies that gays have no variance or chance for individuality, that they can't behave like real people, only like stereotypes. Never mind the fact that the bank of suitors is sorely lacking in any kind of diversity. All are gym-toned, most are white, and all look far too scrubbed and cleaned.<br /><br />This is another example of how, instead of fostering acceptance of gays as dynamic individuals capable of variance and change, Hollywood has again taken a stereotype and run with it all the way to the bank. I feel genuinely dirty watching this show, as show any gay man who sees this unabashed parade of soft-core pornography masquerading as legitimate television. 1 out of 10. | 0neg
|
The Nutcracker has always been a somewhat problematic ballet. It bears little resemblance to ETA Hoffman's original story on which it is based.<br /><br />In the ballet, the story is essentially over by the second-half when Clara (or Marie in this version) travels to the Kingdom of Sweets to watch a series of character dances.<br /><br />There's an infinite variety of stage productions that re-interpret the story in myriad ways (not always successfully) to compensate for the ballet's weak libretto.<br /><br />Balanchine's version doesn't really have any sense of drama or story at all (despite the fact that there is plenty of drama and mystery in Tchaikovsky's wonderful first-act music). The result is a completely forgettable first-half Christmas party where hardly anything happens and where even the dancing (the little that there is of it) isn't particularly memorable.<br /><br />The pantomime over-acting, particularly of Drosselmeier, which might look passable on the stage, just looks silly filmed for the big screen.<br /><br />Unfortunately, things aren't much better when we get to the Kingdom of Sweets (Act II in the stage version). Although there are a few choreographic highlights, most of the choreography is bland and uninspiring. This certainly isn't vintage Balanchine.<br /><br />Balanchine is widely regarded as a master of abstract dance, but I have always felt he was less successful as a creator of narrative ballets. Watching this film version of his stage production of The Nutcracker has only re-affirmed this view. | 0neg
|
I have seen many, many productions of The Nutcracker. Now perhaps I viewed this movie from the tainted point of view of a theatrical director, but I was disappointed. I'm sure people in the specific business of ballet choreography find this production impressive but from a purely theatrical perspective I found everything from design to choreography to be lackluster and unbefitting of a "motion picture". None of the traditionally "weird" and impressive costumes looked like what they were supposed to be (i.e. the candies didn't look like candies, the rats didn't look like rats but rather like chocolate kisses,) the acting was weak, perhaps toned down too much for the screen, and the choreography just didn't do anything for me. This makes the entire show very satisfactory (at best), as if it were intended to not set itself apart from any other production. But remember, again, this is from the artistic perspective of a theatrical director, not a dancer or a choreographer, but a straight male theatrical director. | 0neg
|
I cannot vote on this because I wouldn't watch garbage from these people. They got my money with another movie (Mr. Jingles) and I swore it would never happen again. I feel it's my civic duty to help people stay away from this trash. Go to the forums on this film and read where cast members try to act like they are seeing the movie for the first time. One guy even responds to himself ...using the same name! There are shills in the forum that say it's as good as Shawshank Redemption and Citizen Kane...Not even close (by no means). If this is the company's 2nd movie, it should be better than the first. That means the 3rd movie should be a lot better. Not so, I've seen it. All I want to know is how you distribute this trash using the same names all the time. Having fun with friends and making a movie over the weekend is fine...but don't try to market that trash! | 0neg
|
I don't really post comments, but wanted to make sure to warn people off this film. It's an unfinished student film with no redeeming features whatsoever. On a technical level, it's completely amateur - constant unintentional jump edits within scenes, dubbing wildly off, etc. The plot is completely clichéd, the structure is laughable, and the acting is embarrassing. I don't want to be too harsh: I've made my share of student films, and they were all awful, but there's no reason for this film to be out in the world where innocent fans will have to see it.<br /><br />Safe assumption that - much like the cast - positive comments are filmmakers, friends, and family. | 0neg
|
THIS CONTAINS SPOILERS.<br /><br />I have rarely seen a film that is as unbelievable as this one is. And being French, it tries for depth by being enigmatic
nothing really makes any sense.<br /><br />Léo is gay and has just announced at breakfast to his family that he is HIV positive. The youngest brother, Marcel, has not yet come down to breakfast, and the first thing the family does is decide that at 12 years of age he is too young to be told. Maybe if he was four or five, but twelve? The first totally unbelievable thing is that the family doesn't even ask where or how he got the virus, how long he has known about it
nothing is asked. They only worry about Marcel finding out. This is a very close knit provincial family, but although they decide not to let Marcel know about Léo's HIV positive status nor the fact of his being gay, the rest of the family accepts all this news with absolutely no questions or reactions. How many families do you know where the parents/brothers wouldn't have at least SOME reaction to one of the members announcing that he is gay? Here, nothing.<br /><br />Léo decides that he needs to go to Paris to see his ex-lover. And he decides to go on the trip with, of all people, Marcel. Do you know anyone who would bring his little brother along to go see a lover? Again, totally unbelievable, especially since Marcel is not supposed to know either of his medical problems nor of his homosexuality. If this is the way the family has decided to let him find out, it is rather brutal and again unbelievable.<br /><br />Léo goes to find his lover, Aymeric, at his work in a Paris bar. The owner says that Aymeric will not be there until the early evening. But why would Léo want to see him at work? Why not phone and arrange to see him in some place more private where they can really talk? Why not go and see him at his home? But no, Léo shows up later in the day (with Marcel in tow) and is surprised when Aymeric doesn't just drop everything to go walk with him for 5 minutes. Aymeric tells him that he is no longer available, that it was Léo who left him, and that Léo hadn't replied to any of his letters. Léo says "But I love you" and then wanders off. But if he really loved Aymeric, wouldn't he have at least told him about his HIV status, to warn him to get tested and maybe get medication? This would be the least he could do but not a peep. He leaves and doesn't even warn Aymeric that he might have contracted the AIDS virus. This is totally irresponsible of him and of the film-makers; this film was apparently made for a French TV series for young people it is the perfect way to show kids how to be responsible. Well, not here
I guess "Every man for himself" is still the French way of doing things
Another aspect of the film which was totally unbelievable was the "touchy-feely" aspect. Everyone is always leaning against someone, caressing someone or kissing someone. Inside the family and outside the family. I have never seen anyone in France be THIS physical, never mind an entire family. Seated at the breakfast table, one 17 year old brother has his leg perched on the lap of his elder brother, and the elder brother is caressing his leg as everyone sits around discussing something. How many brothers do you know who are THAT physically close? In another scene, the same 17 year old comes into Marcel's room asking "What's the matter, can't you sleep?", then takes off his clothes and, completely naked, gets into bed with his brother and snuggles up to him as if they were lovers. This and another similar scene between Léo and Marcel gave a somewhat incestuous feel to the film. Sorry, again I don't believe that this is regular behaviour between teenage brothers.<br /><br />The only good thing I can say about the film is that the actors are all quite fine
especially Marcel in the main role. But it wasn't really enough
HIV and AIDS are far too serious to be presented in such a vague and irresponsible light. At the end of the film, the family has gone to the cemetery to bury Léo, but once again, Marcel has been left out of it he has been left in the care of a cousin (I think). Nevertheless he sneaks out and watches the funeral from afar. Is this what such a close-knit family would have done? It is totally inconceivable that they would not have included him in his brother's funeral. It was the last scene of the film, and it was the last straw for this viewer. | 0neg
|
There is a lot to like here. The actors are first rate and the script provides good dialog best capturing the ambiance of a tightly knit, likable family. However, for that reason the film does not ring true. We see Leo, who apparently just learned of his HIV positive diagnosis, essentially react in a way that is not in tune to the supportive atmosphere for which he finds himself. As well, the film ends somewhat abruptly avoiding what Leo, his brother and the rest of this close family must have dealt with in light of their love for him. The young actor who plays Leo's brother, Marcel, is impressive as generally is the rest of the cast. Unfortunately, the scriptwriters could not decide onwhether they wanted an insightful dissertation on the effects of HIV on a functional, appealing family or what the devastation HIV is on the victim - so it only hints at both. While this film provides food for thought it leaves the viewer wanting much more than it delivers. | 0neg
|
I must be that one guy in America that didn't like this movie. I guess this just wasn't my style or something, I just don't see what's so fascinating about it, this was *barely entertaining, let alone one of the greatest achievements in cinema history. <br /><br />It's about a guy that came from nothing, and goes on to become a drug lord. Pretty simple way to describe an entire movie, and that's exactly my feeling about the entire movie. Contrary to what a lot of people think, just because a movie is about mafias/drug trade/criminal groups doesn't automatically make it a great movie, don't forget good storytelling. | 0neg
|
This is not really a proper review since I did not see most of the film. I stopped watching it. The film is very violent, with nasty drug dealers and street punks, but that is not why I stopped watching.<br /><br />Here was the problem: I watched just enough to be introduced to several characters, all of whom were not interesting. Everyone was a tedious, despicable psychopath, with no engaging personalities, giving me nothing to look forward to. I found myself not the least bit curious about what they would do next or what might happen to them.<br /><br />If there had been even one person of interest, and I don't mean good or nice person, I mean an interesting person, I could have stayed with it. Watch "State of Grace" to see what I mean. In that film the Gary Oldman character is a complete lunatic, but he is *very* interesting. Al Pacino perhaps did a good job in Scarface, but his character just did not engage me. | 0neg
|
Spoken like a true hard-boiled u'an gangsta. The story is no worse than any number of gangster flicks, but never ever confuse this movie with The Godfather I or II, or Goodfellas. It is not in the same league.<br /><br />But what makes the film periodically painful to watch is all these Italian Americans swaggering around dropping bad gangsta lines in an even worse fake u'an accent. Pacino would have been great if they could just have dubbed him. I was looking forward to see Abrahams and Loggia, but their steenky accents spoiled the fun.<br /><br />Ah well, the script ain't too hot either. Don Corleone would have made this disappear five minutes after meeting him, smiling and patting him on the back all the while. | 0neg
|
It is nice to see the likes of Oliver Stone, Brian DePalma, Al Pacino, and even Michelle Pfiefer make one monumental piece of cinematic garbage. It is nice to see people so rich and 'successful' wasting their time on one of the most forgettable, trite, and pathetic pieces of film-making of all time. This movie represents the worst of Hollywood.<br /><br />What is this? Is it based on a true story. Well, they do start with some basic news bites and facts that they read off USA today. But then the movie departs to some fantasy world and a 'cuban' refugee going to make it in the American drug subculture; kind of like Rocky on cocaine. Is it a movie about Cuba or Cubans? For the life of me I don't believe there is a single Cuban in this movie. The accents are totally fake, and scene with Antonio's mother looks like a poster for midwest American values. The whole scene looks like something out of the Dick Van Dyke show. Is this movie about Miami? It looks more like L.A. transposed in Florida. Afterall, a palm tree is a palm tree. Is this a romance novel. The relationship between Pacino and Pfeiffer is so obvious from the getgo, and there is not one shred of possibility that these two characters could ever care for each other. Is this a drug movie? Well, no issues of obsession or addiction are even mentioned. The behavior of the actors after a line of coke is nothing different than had they had a drink of water. Admittedly, the acting is terrible.<br /><br />Let's get to the rest. The music is disgusting and sounds like latin elevator music or something out of a Lawrence Welk show. I think I heard a polka? The camera work is shoddy with too much movement and far more cranes than could ever be effective. Clearly, the photography budget was excessive. The sound is bleached in a number of spots, and the dialogue seems to be carried out in a warehouse. The writing is appalling. This is one of those movies were the script writes itself. You are dragged from one trite piece of dialogue to the next, each pushing the plot like a sack of bricks.<br /><br />So I am going to ask, Is this even a movie? It could be a drama series patched together for two and a half hours. But at least a drama series has some kind of focus. Maybe it is just a bunch of poorly acted scenes taped together. Whatever it is, movie or not, it is a piece of crap. | 0neg
|
It wasn't the most pointless animation film experience ever, but it certainly can't be admired as much as it tries to be good. Combining Dreamworks animation and computer graphics, this is the story of a mustang, later named Spirit (Matt Damon, providing the first person narration), and his journey through across the frontiers of the Old West. Basically he is born free amongst all the other horses in the beautiful countryside, then he is kidnapped to be used as a saddle horse, he manages to throw off all who try to ride him. However when he escapes his cage, along with Little Creek (Daniel Studi), the two of them form a friendship, oh, and he obviously has a thing for Little Creek's female horse. In the end, after a few more escapes, being chased by The Colonel (James Cromwell) and his men, and making a final big leap across a gorge, Little Creek lets Spirit go, and he also releases his female horse, and they run home to their countryside and fellow horses. Also starring Chopper Bernet as Sgt. Adams, Jeff LeBeau as Murphy/Railroad Foreman, John Rubano as Soldier, Richard McGonagle as Bill and Matthew Levin as Joe. I was expecting to see the horses talk in this film, but it turns out to be more like a Dumbo thing throughout, and the songs by Bryan Adams aren't the most engaging, but it isn't a terrible film. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Animated Feature, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Song for Bryan Adams' "Here I Am". Okay! | 0neg
|
Here's the good news first. "Spirit" is the most visually incredible animated film in current home theater release. The artwork and effects are revolutionary, and I recommend that you give this movie a look by virtue of the visuals alone.<br /><br />And now for the bad news. I really mean it when I say that the animation is the only thing this movie has going for it. You may remember that "Spirit" got badly trounced by "Lilo and Stitch" last summer. The first person who argues that it was because Disney is more well-established and had better advertising can write me a four page long essay entitled "Why 'Lilo and Stitch''s Script Didn't Stink".<br /><br />For all the incredible new animation technology on display in "Spirit", the story is almost *astonishingly* dull. There is a lesson here, and (needless to say) it doesn't just apply to animated movies. You can have the most mind-blowing visual effects ever to grace the eyes of a mortal, but if your story is boring and, more importantly, we don't care about your characters, it's bad film-making. Simple as that. The animation is still mind-blowing; I just can't wait to see what somebody with more imagination does with it. | 0neg
|
(Some possible spoilers)<br /><br /> I'm not too sure what Dreamworks was thinking when they decided to plunk $80 million down on this extremely tired and lame animated flick. They probably thought the spectacular animation would be more than enough to bring audiences (mostly families) to see it in droves. Well it seemed to work for the opening weekend, it made $26 mil., roughly and has made $38.1 mil. total (an estimation for this weekend). But I think audiences that came during the weekend saw pretty much the same thing I did, when I saw and they spread the word. This is one majorly lame movie, apart from the animation everything else, mostly the script seem to be done by a three year old.<br /><br /> The movie is only about 80 mins. long, but it feels like a three hour epic. A few sticking points for me are, well the irritating narration is one of them, and it's so obviously written. At one point he escapes from some captors and even though you can see the horse is obviously scared, up pops the narrator (the voice of the talented Matt Damon) to clear up any misconceptions (which would only happen in the simplest of mindsets.<br /><br /> Another one is the constant pop up of Bryan Adams songs, now I'm a fan of his music, I think he's good, but come on did Dreamworks really think audiences would be able to handle 8-9 of his songs throughout such a short movie, I certainly couldn't. Finally and here's a spoiler, a horse gets shot at point blank range by a member of the calvary, no less, she (the horse) then falls into a raging river, Spirit (the focus of the movie) tries to save her, but they both go over a waterfall that must have at least a 50 foot drop, well later in the movie near the end we see that this horse is alive and well. Now I know this is a kids movie, but even that little amount of realism is unacceptable.<br /><br /> To sum up, this is a really lame movie, I'm not saying kids won't enjoy it, but anyone else will be checking their watches just waiting for this tripe to end. Definitely on my Top 10 worst list of this year. -** out of 4 stars.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
For anyone that loves predictable movies with an awful soundtrack, lack of dialogue, clichés up the wazoo, and also stereotypes that just happens to be typical of an American film, look no farther. DreamWorks whether wanted to save money on acquiring voice talent, or really wanted to create an animated episode of National Geographic; either way, they succeeded in delivering a rather bland and boring movie. Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron is a bore fest that sends mixed signals to kids and adults, and also fails to entertain despite the oh-so-cutesy theme of animals triumphing over humans. After looking past the wonderful animations, what you have remaining is nothing but a big mess.<br /><br />Spirit is about a stallion that from the beginning of the film looks like quite a handful, as he is a horse that cannot be tamed, calmed, nor controlled. Because of this, he rises and becomes the leader of his group of high-spirited horses, which includes his mom. But, his life of freedom and running around comes to an abrupt halt as he is captured by a group of Americans in the process of connecting the Wild West with the rest of the country. During this, Spirit (never actually named that throughout the entire film almost) befriends a courageous Native American, and a fellow female horse, and also has a lot of run-ins with the cynical and cruel Army folks that apparently don't believe in giving up.<br /><br />Why must movies mix computer animation with traditional? It comes off looking rather meshed, something Spirited Away suffered from as well. Best example is when a train is chasing after Spirit; you see the hand-drawn Spirit running from a computer-animated train. It would look much better if it were one or the other, but not both; unless you can really pull off some nice effects. Beauty and The Beast's famous dance sequence uses computer animation, but it is nowhere near as obvious as the train or the snow in this movie. The opening sequence was the best-looking part of the film, kind of sad to see the rest of the movie slide a bit downhill in terms of quality. A little scene has multiple; I mean multiple similar shots of just a general's face, quite repetitive and annoying in my opinion.<br /><br />The kids might enjoy this flick, but with lack of dialog, song, and motivation, it might be a perfect technique in making hyper children fall asleep. While Disney becomes criticized for its animated musicals, they wind up becoming much more entertaining than a more realistic approach to telling a story like this one. Bryan Adams has no place in this movie, and why does Hans Zimmer stay away from using a Western theme in this movie, when it is a story taking place in the Old West? Soundtrack sounds a bit off if you ask me. At least they are using realistic noises of horses, two points for that. Yet, if you are going to refrain from making horses talk, why even have a narrator interrupt every so often, which just so happens to be the main character himself?<br /><br />Native Americans are nice, and the Western folks are evil, Native-killing, horse torturing, rowdy, psychopathic monsters that must be destroyed. More or less, this is what Spirit is showing us. It reaches a point in which they are trying so hard for the viewers to hate the travelers of the Wild West; they even had a scene of several horses pulling a huge train up a hill, and another scene of them destroying an entire village of Natives. Now, the person Spirit befriended happened to betray him, on more than one occasion, yet that is forgivable, apparently because he is not a soldier; that or because he has the sassy female horse.<br /><br />Spirit isn't exactly a victim we should feel sorry for; the viewer is supposed to sympathize with Spirit despite him putting his entire group of horses at risk, wreaking havoc, and even perhaps resulting in some off-screen deaths that are quickly shoved aside because oh no, Spirit is in trouble! This film gets quite rhythmic, as we see in multiple instances Spirit escaping from chains, kicking people around, destroying property, freeing horses, and then getting captured again---all in this same order too. The writers also seem to have an obsession with cliffs because they are sprinkled all over the movie; for an Old West film, they certainly have very little room to roam.<br /><br />Bottom Line: This is most certainly no Disney movie, as a matter of fact that is a bad thing, even though it was what they were aiming for. So, instead of the typical musical, we get a boring film that becomes predictable, dull and slow in multiple instances. Even the decent animation becomes inconsistent when the computer work gets thrown in. Everything about this movie was just wrong; from the ideals that back then Americans that were not native were evil buffoons, to the soundtrack and musical score that just seemed so far off. Kill Bill Vol. 2, which pretty much has nothing to do with the Old West, has more of a Western feel than this movie. Do yourselves a favor and totally skip this by all means necessary. Thank you. | 0neg
|
Even though an animated film it really bored everyone under at least 6.<br /><br />As a grown up who grew up in an area with wild horses and native americans, it felt this was a combination of PC mixed in with too many fantasy films created by people who never lived in the area they filmed about. Talk to those who have lived on horse back, most treat their animals like family members, regardless of background. Regardless of background we have dealt with good and bad breakers of wild horses. I had to explain that was a real life issues to us vs the movie makers views to children who were surprised to see how PC showed a world different than what they knew in reality.<br /><br />This dreamworks break from the normal disney or dreamworks fare of cute talking animals burning up the screen was nice from the older viewer point of view. But if you live in an area similar to what is shown, you may end up answering questions. | 0neg
|
Decent animation and some workable character development keep this animated horse fable from DreamWorks at least watchable... however it remains somewhat slow paced and the storyline is a bit on the silly side.. It is interesting to see a reversal of the typical cowboys and indian roles, but here it just seems like a nod to political correctness rather than a proper storyline decision. GRADE: C | 0neg
|
Flat, soulless computer images on less than astonishing backgrounds animates a horribly predictable story in this film. Absolutely nothing takes you by surprise, you can even tell when the Bryan Adams vocals are going to come in, which are always at the wrong time.<br /><br />The main character, Spirit the horse, is given an annoying voice when he narrates what is happening. The narration is not needed, though, as everything happening is really obvious. You can even tell what the horses are saying, although all they do is neigh. Which would be good, but all the horses make exactly the same sounds - one for warning, one for sorrow, one for laughing, etc. There is no variation between the horses' voices.<br /><br />Young kids might like this film, though. It's soppy enough for a family to sit down and watch, and there's little danger of anyone being frightened. If you have nothing else to do, and want to watch a film with your kids, this isn't a bad choice.<br /><br />But otherwise, this isn't recommended. | 0neg
|
Believe me, I wanted to like "Spirit". The idiotic comments people made at the time of its release about how quaint it was to see old-fashioned, hand-drawn animation again, as if the last pencil-animated cartoon had been released twenty years ago, and the even more idiotic comments about how computers had now made the old techniques obsolete, had got my blood up ... but then, the insulting, flavourless banality I had to endure in the first ten minutes of "Spirit" got my blood up even more.<br /><br />The character designs are generic, the animation (partly as a result) merely competent, the art direction as a whole so utterly, boringly lacklustre that you wonder how it could have come about (we know, from "The Prince of Egypt" and "The Road to El-Dorado", that there are talented artists at Dreamworks), and the sophisticated use of CGI is in every single instance ill-judged. (Why do they bother?) There's not a single thing worth LOOKING at. In an animated cartoon, this is fatal.<br /><br />But it gets worse...<br /><br />The horses can't talk, but they're far more anthropomorphised and unconvincing than the deer in "Bambi", which can. And it seems that, in a way, the horses CAN talk. Spirit himself delivers the prologue (sounding for all the world like a 21st-Century actor picked out of a shopping mall in California), and from then on his laid-back, decidedly unhorselike narration is scarcely absent from the soundtrack, although it never once tells us anything that we didn't already know, or expresses a feeling which the artwork, poor though it is, wasn't capable of expressing twice as well. That prologue, by the way: (a) contains information which Spirit, we later discover, had know way of knowing; (b) expresses ideas which Spirit would lack the power to express even if he COULD talk; (c) includes new age rubbish like, "This story may not be true, but it's what I remember"; and (d) will give countless children (the production is pitched, I presume, at six-year-olds) the impression that horses are native to North America, which is sort of true, in that the common ancestor of domestic horses, zebras etc. WAS native to North America - but all horse species on the continent had gone extinct long before the first humans arrived, and the mustangs of Spirit's herd (which allegedly "belong here like the buffalo grass") were descended from horses introduced by Europeans.<br /><br />So the prologue rather annoyed me.<br /><br />As often as Spirit talks, Bryan Adams sings, sounding as usual as though he's got a bad throat infection - and it's not THAT he sings or even HOW he sings, it's WHAT he sings: maudlin narrative ballads which contribute even less, if possible, than Spirit's spoken narrative, and which sound as though they all have exactly the same tune (although I was paying close attention, and was able to discern that they probably didn't). If only Bryan Adams and the guy-pretending-to-be-a-horse could have SHUT UP for a minute or two, the movie might have been allowed to take its true form: mediocre and derivative, rather than jaw-droppingly bad. | 0neg
|
As other viewers have mentioned, this film was an interesting experiment in photography. The colors are comic book bold. I think the director got carried away with his "artistic vision" over the look of the film instead o badly needed attention to content. Despite its stellar cast, the performances are lackluster and the story nearly incoherent. Madonna was likely cast purely as a stunt to get pre-release press. A good thing as her appearance here lent some credence to her album "I'm Breathless (Music inspired by the film Dick Tracy)" which was a stratospheric hit (due in large part to the inclusion of dance-hit "Vogue" - which is not in, nor has the slightest relation to this film). I'd guess the major portion of money from this film came from tie-ins to Madonna's "I'm Breathless" album.<br /><br />If you watch it at home, by end-titles, you'll think "there's two hours out of my life I'd like to have back." Save yourself the wasted time - do not bother with this. | 0neg
|
This film is stale, and misses the mark. It is far off compared to the 89 Batman that it tries to coppy. That women singer whats her name can not act, and we see why her film carrier died. Notice how this film died in the box office no one see this film on tv either. My uncle and dad were expecting Batman, and the films impression is more like Cop Rock. Not worth renting 3/10 | 0neg
|
When people ask me whats the worst movie I've ever seen its this one. Its not even close to MST3k level riffing, or midnight viewing at a theatre, or even as Disney channel late night filler. The only time I've ever wanted to jump off a ride at Disney World (or Disney/MGM Studios in this case) was to grab Dick Tracey's jacket off the mannequin, rip it to shreds, and ram it down the tour guides throat saying "Eat this! Eat this unholy coat of darkness!!!" I've never been so mad at a movie, not even "Nutty Professor II: The Klumps" or "Flash Gordon". You want pretty colors and cinematography? Ain't here babe. Reviewers keep saying "oh, but its too look like a comic book", well, to me, its the color of a Gordito after several weeks in the sun. About as enjoyable too. Beatty wanders around this landscape jumping around and talking to his watch, himself, and occasional at the other actors, hoping someone will tell him what time the sequel will begin shooting. To be fair, I have only seen this movie once, but my pain threshold is that of a man, not a God. | 0neg
|
i just saw Dick Tracy and I thought it was terrible. The paintings in the background of the cities looked awful. Also the mob characters looked too weird. Warren Beatty didn't do an awful job as Dick Tracy but it was definetely not one of his better performances. Madonna should just stick to singing. Glenne Headly did a good job in this movie. I gave this movie a 2/10 just because of the amazing acting by Al Pacino. It wasn't a high note in his career but he still did a good job. | 0neg
|
This has to be one of the worst films of the 1990s. When my friends & I were watching this film (being the target audience it was aimed at) we just sat & watched the first half an hour with our jaws touching the floor at how bad it really was. The rest of the time, everyone else in the theatre just started talking to each other, leaving or generally crying into their popcorn that they actually paid money they had earnt working to watch this feeble excuse for a film. It must have looked like a great idea on paper, but on film it looks like no-one in the film has a clue what is going on. Crap acting, crap costumes. I can't get across how embarrasing this is to watch. Save yourself an hour & a bit of your life......... | 0neg
|
Director Warren Beatty's intention to turn Chester Gould's famous comic strip into a live-action cartoon (with Beatty himself cast in the lead as the square-jawed detective) had sweet overtures of innocent nostalgia--quite unusual and intriguing coming from Warren Beatty. Unfortunately, the picture is requisite ham, fun for awhile but eventually tiring. Dick Tracy attempts to bring down mobster Big Boy Caprice, aided by loving Tess Trueheart but tripped up by evil Breathless Mahoney. For the first half-hour or so, the Oscar-winning art direction and set design are wonderful to absorb but, as the plot creaks along predictably (with no real sting in the writing), things begin to congeal. Al Pacino got a surprise Supporting Oscar nomination as bad boy Caprice, and Madonna (who is mostly used as a decorative prop) gets to sing Stephen Sondheim's "Sooner or Later (I Always Get My Man)", which copped the award for Best Original Song. Lots of heart, thanks to Beatty--who was dedicated to his vision--but the picture is too cool and calculated. It lacks heat. *1/2 from **** | 0neg
|
There have been many movies featuring Bigfoot, the majority of which are not good but most at least have a goofy charm to them. Sasquatch Hunters doesn't even have that going for it. It's just a crashing bore.<br /><br />Sasquatch Hunters is about a group of paleontologists, primatologists, and forest rangers that venture off into a remote part of a Pacific Northwest forest. Bones belonging to some sort of abnormally large primate have been discovered in this region and since apes aren't natural to North America to begin with this leads to a scientific expedition. Sure enough, they soon discover a whole burial ground full of the skeletal remains of these enormous ape-like creatures. I think we all know what happens to people that disturb ancient burial grounds in the movies.<br /><br />The first half of the movie consists of uninteresting, interchangeable characters assembling their gear, hiking through the woods, stopping to rest, hiking through the woods some more, pausing long enough to investigate and discuss a few findings along the way, yet more hiking through the woods, looking for a group member that has vanished, even more hiking through the woods, digging through dirt, random theorizing, and gathering around a campfire to discuss what little they've done that day. When Sasquatch finally shows up it just turns into people stumbling around in the dark while being picked off one at a time (done in a blink and you missed it fashion and the actual killing occurs off-camera). All of this is excruciatingly boring.<br /><br />The movie wants to be taken seriously and the director is clearly trying to build suspense but there is none to be found, thus we are left with dull, drawn out scenes of people wandering around the woods just to get somewhere and wander around the woods at night trying to act scared. I'd be lying if I said I didn't make liberal use of the fast forward button to speed these scenes up.<br /><br />As for Sasquatch himself, much like every other character else in the movie, it doesn't have much to do and lacks a distinct personality. It looks like a shaggier version of King Kong, which isn't all that bad except in the scenes where they used CGI instead of a man in a Bigfoot costume, which is painfully obvious during the daylight monster scenes. A part of me can't help but feel that even using computer effects to bring Bigfoot to life is a tad sacrilegious. If there is any single movie monster that I believe should only be brought to life through situation, it's Bigfoot.<br /><br />This is one of those movies that doesn't so much have a plot as it does a premise. That's all it really is, a premise, which the people involved stretched out to make a feature length motion picture without bothering to add all the ingredients to make a worthwhile movie. | 0neg
|
That's right. A movie written, directed and produced by Fred Tepper and family. (Fred should have known better, having worked the sets of 'Titantic' and 'Dogma'.) <br /><br />So, the plot. There are some scientists, and some forest rangers, and a hot chick with huge fake breasts. They are all really bad at their jobs, including the hot chick(who I think is supposed to be a photographer, but who cares because she wears a bikini). One of the forest rangers comments that the scientists are "professional people," which is good, because it would be horrible if they were professional grubs or jellybeans or Ewoks.<br /><br />They are hiking through the woods in search of some strange ape-like bones, and no one even once mentions that the bones just might be those of the infamous Bigfoot. They just wander around and one of the rangers unabashedly hits on the hottie. We all hope he dies real soon (along with his sister who's meant to be the cute naive one, but is really just annoying). Then they, *gasp*, find a Sasqu... I mean, Ape-like Animal Burial Ground. Of course, no mentions that it might just be Bigfoot bones they're messing with... I guess scientists and forest rangers just don't think about those types of things.<br /><br />Then Sasquatch and his tribe get really angry and kill all the people we dislike, chases the other losers away and buries his Great Aunt Muriel and Cousin Josh (who died in an unfortunate trout accident) all over again.<br /><br />Insipid, boring dialogue (I zoned out several times), inane plot, unlikable characters, bad CGI (a man in a monkey suit would look better), and acting that just wasn't very good all add up to make a movie I won't be watching again.<br /><br />You check it out though; it's good for some unintentional laughs. | 0neg
|
Budget, decent actors ...who knew these things were important. Don't waste your time on this piece of junk. The effects are crap. The acting is crap. The only thing that could have made this even tolerable was a little cheap T&A and that gets squandered in the first 20 minutes.<br /><br />The only even remotely redeeming quality about this movie is the very awkward profanity. It was like they found the only 7 people on the planet who have never cursed before. Hats off!<br /><br />If you want to see some dude in a bad suit just go back and look at old prom photos. The only way for a Bigfoot flick to be any good is for it to have a big budget and some actors who didn't come from Frogballs Community Theater. | 0neg
|
i went into watching this movie knowing it wasn't going to be great. but what i witnessed was to awful for words. i don't mean to be harsh, its just the movie was terrible. overall it had bad, i mean AWFUL special effects, the acting wasn't too bad, but wasn't good either, and sasquatch himself was like.... well, not sasquatch. in my opinion the best sasquatch movie is Harry and the Hendersons. its not violent or horror, but it has the best depiction of sasquatch. at least its a suit and not some half-ass cgi rip-off. only see this movie if you are desperate, or really appreciate anyone in the film. or go watch boondock saints, it is MUCH better. | 0neg
|
I have always been interested in anything about Bigfoot, so when I was browsing around looking for a movie to rent, this one caught my eye. It was the WORST $4.50 I've ever spent and I want my money back! Please don't waste your money on this!! This was one of the cheapest movies I've ever seen. The entire movie was so incredibly boring and I found myself rolling my eyes a lot and I didn't even watch it all the way through. I just got fed up with it. The acting was horrible, the effects were horrible, everything was just really bad and tasteless. It all added up to be a really bad, boring movie and total waste of time and money. I hope that one day they'll make a good movie about Sasquatch, but until then, I'll have to sit through countless cheap duds like this one to find the real masterpiece. | 0neg
|
This is definitely the worst bigfoot movie I've ever seen and quite possibly the overall worst movie I've ever seen in my life. The actors and actresses were horrible and it seemed like they were trying way too hard to play their roles as dorks, tough guys, jerks, know it alls, etc. And the bigfoot itself was terrible. It appeared to be some kind of computer generated image from the days of Atari & Intellivision. At one point near the end of the movie as an army of sasquatches were chasing after the remaining survivors, one gets shot and as it's running it looked like a poor man's version of donkey kong himself! And one gets hit by a bullet and the blood that comes out of it was just awful animation. Another thing that was annoying was the music. Way way way too much music (classical score or whatever you call it) throughout the entire film. It was never ending. Oh yeah, the movie is boring too. Absolutely one of the worst films I've ever seen. I highly recommend taking your $3 or whatever they charge to rent this movie and spending it on a gallon of gas or a value menu somewhere. TRULY AWFUL! | 0neg
|
A group of forest rangers and scientists go into the woods to find fossils.They stumble on a Bigfoot burial ground eventually (the didn't notice it in the dark), The scenes of the CGI Bigfoot are horrid, but better than the endless scenes of talking that they rarely punctuate. I used to think that there just might be a good Bigfoot movie to be made. But now after so many sad sad movies about the legend, I'm having serious doubts. To pour salt in the wound of watching this film, the ONE good-looking girl just doesn't get naked once. And while this one MAY be better than "Boggy Creek 2" (no mean feat there), it's still sad that the best non-documentary film on Bigfoot remains "Harry and the Henriksons" <br /><br />My Grade: D | 0neg
|
I got this movie out of Blockbuster in one of those racks were you can get like 5 movies for 20 bucks. I'd have to say I got my money's worth on this one. I had expected horrible dialogue, crappy monsters, and shaky cameras. Well, as Meatloaf said, two outta three ain't bad.<br /><br />The acting is bad, though not as bad as some movies I've seen. Or maybe I've watched so many low budget movies recently I've lost perspective. There are some bits were the acting is downright terrible, but for the most part it's of at least High School Play level.<br /><br />The CG for the Sasquatch in this movie is probably the second-worst part. The first thing I thought when I saw it (and I noticed another reviewer agreed with me) was that a man in an ape suit would have been better. Clunky stop-motion animation would have looked better.<br /><br />So you may be asking why I call the CG the second-worst part. That's because the very worst part of the movie is the sound effects. They are loud, annoying, and constant. I've been camping, I know what insects sound like in the woods at night, and while they can be loud, they're not deafening like the cacophony in this movie. Usually when the "background" sounds drown out the movie's dialogue, it's a bad thing, but from what I caught of the dialogue of this film, I wasn't missing much.<br /><br />The action was infrequent and boring. The tension was non-existent, as was any sense of empathy with the characters. Speaking of the characters, they were all cookie-cutter and bland. The only mildly engaging byplay was between...actually, I can't think of anything. There was a line or two that made me crack a wan smile, but that was about it.<br /><br />The cinematography was decent, a step or two above what you'd normally see in a movie like this. However, it still had that "home movie" quality to it that you get with movies made on pocket change and a prayer. <br /><br />If you're like me and get a kick out of shoestring budget genre flicks, and you see this one in the dollar bin, think about grabbing it. Otherwise, stay away at all costs. | 0neg
|
foywonder's review of this cheap STV hits the nail squarely on the head. Make sure you read it. In case you don't, a group of scientists heads off into the deep woods of the Pacific Northwest, to fumble around with a bunch of bones in an animal graveyard. The Big Foot family doesn't take kindly to this, and proceeds to pick off the team one by one, largely offscreen. Big Foot himself has a distinctly ape-like face, but is less scary overall than Harry from HARRY AND THE HENDERSONS. Most of the movie has the wooden, generic actors pretending to be scientists tromping around in the woods and yakking away. This is a no-budget movie in which very little happens, at least on screen. We do get to watch the sexiest of the females take a shower while one of her male companions watches, but nothing comes of this. | 0neg
|
This is the biggest piece of lamo I've ever watched. It is excruciatingly boring I would have rather sat through a seminar on creationism than have watched this if i had known it was going to be as boring as it was. Not even the 40 seconds of the hot chick in the bikini with the big ta tas redeems this of anything lower than a 1.<br /><br />The reviews of this movie claiming that this movie is "unintentionally funny" are absurd and just plain WRONG. Not one thing is funny about this movie. they spend the first 50 or so minutes walking through the woods talking about stuff you wouldn't understand nor care about and it is just as lame when the people start dying because you don't even know who the people are because they are so UNINTERESTING. Honestly though, I didn't watch it to the ending, but that should say something about how horrible it is. WORST MOVIE EVER.<br /><br />Immediately after ejecting this filth from my DVD player I started scraping it against the cement in front of my house, not wanting other blockbuster customers to have to fall upon the same mistake i had made as to rent this movie. Then Zach peed his pants. Thankyou for your time. | 0neg
|
Oh where to begin. The cinematography was great. When the movie first started because of the initial landscape scenes I thought that I was in for a good movie. Then the cgi Bigfoot showed up .It looked like a cartoon drawing of the Lion king and king Kong's love child.It totally took away from the believability of the character.Now I knew there wasn't a Bigfoot chasing people hiking around the woods for no apparent reason but a cheesy cgi cartoon.So from then on the whole movie was shot for me.The money they flushed down the toilet for the cgi they could of spent on a costume like roger Patterson did. His was the best Bigfoot costume ever no one else could match his.I am a hardcore cheesy Bigfoot movie fan and I was warned about this movie but my compulsion led me to watching this movie and I was disappointed like the previous reviews warned me about. I know after you read this review you will still say "I must watch Sasquatch hunters,must watch Sasquatch hunters." Then you will say why did I waste my good hard earned money on such a excruciatingly bad boring movie! | 0neg
|
When i first saw this film i thought it was going to be a good sasquatch film. Usually when you have these types of movies there's generally ONE sasquatch, but in this one there is like what? 7 or 10 of them?. Acting was good, plot was OK, i liked the scenes where the sasquatch is killing the first few victims, very good camera work. I was expecting it to be a gory film but it was very little. This movie was way better than Sasquatch. The SCI-FI channel really needs to make more sasquatch films, i mean i really liked Sasquatch Mountain, Abominibal was not good, the one i'm reviewing is OK, but the movie Sasquatch was not, but I'm not reviewing that so let me get back on track. This movie is good for a rainy Saterday afternoon, but for any other occasions, no. | 0neg
|
How did this ever come into existence? I generally love sci F/Bigfoot whatever films etc. . . but I still expect them to be written without quite so much cheese as this. The effects were sad, the lines were sadder. Avoid at all costs. I only ended up renting it because it was in the wrong case (I was looking for the Sasquatch film with Lance Henrikson in it -- still haven't seen that one). The idea of the film is actually a good one. There was a lot of potential to make a great little movie here. I just don't understand how something like this ends up like this. Go speak to the film/arts/English interested students in any high school and you'll find people who can write a better script. | 0neg
|
It really is that bad of a movie. My buddy rented it because he, well, is an idiot. But then again, I must be an idiot too because I watched the whole damn thing! The actors were on par with high school drama geeks who think that are going places. The only place they will be going is back to waiting tables at Luby's. All I could think of while I was watching this "gem" was how it actually got made. I mean, some "screenwriter" actually thought that this premise was fresh, original and lucrative. Then some moron with money believed in the script so much that he decided to fork some cash over with the naive misconception that he was going to make a return on it. Actors were cast, locations were scouted, make-up artists were hired, computer animators fresh out of Al Collins graphic Design School were brought in and this turd started to take form.<br /><br />There obviously were a ton of things that I hated about this move but the one thing the drove me the craziest was the overuse of music. Every single minute of this flick was scored. There was not a single break in music. And at times it was mixed higher than the dialogue, not that it made you miss some vital plot point or anything.<br /><br />After it was over, we decided to watch Mystic River. It was like driving a 1980 VW Diesel Rabbit then switching to a BMW 740il. You couldn't get two more opposite movies in terms of quality. | 0neg
|
I loved this movie, I'll admit it. This has to be the best (straight to?) video movie I've seen. Well... me and my friend decided just for shits n' giggles that we'd rent this movie. We knew what to expect and we got exactly what we expected, plus more. When that red neck gets slammed up against the tree by the Sasquatch, we literally watched that part about three to four times, it was that amazing (hysterically, of course). And why? Oh why does the main character have to roll that much? Like honestly, we know that you're in danger, rolling that much isn't gonna help all that much. But really, if this movie is in you're local video store RENT IT. It is worth the money and it's not even that bad, like it's bad, but not incredibly bad. Overall, complete amazing will be in store for you if you rent this movie. | 0neg
|
As a long-time fan of all the Star Trek series,I found this a disappointing episode, and I wonder if the liberal use of "flashbacks" featuring Will Riker's exploits, both positive (and largely romantic) and negative (lots of pain, and a crewmate's death)was a money-saving device, as were many of their "bottle shows" (episodes in which all scenes take place on the Enterprise). Diana Muldaur(who also appeared at least twice on the original series) deserved a better final appearance than this for her character, Dr. Kate Pulaski. Loyal viewers (in the Star Trek world, is there any other kind?) also were shortchanged. This was the last episode of second season; thus, the season ended "not with a bang" but with "a whimper." | 0neg
|
Because of the 1988 Writers Guild of America strike they had to shoot this episode in 3 days. It's pretty much crap, consisting of repeat cut + pasted clips from Season 2 and was described by its writer, Maurice Hurley as "terrible, just terrible." <br /><br />Why the producers couldn't just wait to shoot something decent who knows. I'm guessing because of the strike the production ran out of money and could only release a flashback episode or maybe Roddenberry was too sick at the time to be able to veto this half-assery. This episode also marks the final appearance of Diana Muldaur (Dr. Katherine Pulaski) on the series. | 0neg
|
I grew up watching and loving TNG. I just recently finished watching the entire series ST Voyager on DVD, which may have heightened my sense of disgust with this episode, as the difference in style and approach between the two shows couldn't be more stark. The idea may have been good if used as an opportunity to further expand Riker's character, which is how it probably would have been treated on VOY. They could have featured memories that would be "new" to the audience, rather than simply regurgitating old show clips. The in and out transitions between the "memories" and the "present" in this episode start as cliché in the beginning, and very quickly become intolerable as the tired pattern wears on and on. Bar none- worst episode ever. | 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.