text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
I am a huge fan of David Lynch. This film, however, was a quite disappointing experience. Apart from the ambient background music which really sets the mood of the film it lacks almost all the qualities that I've come to associate with Lynch's work. The visuals are dull, to say the least, and the dialog is to vague and monotone to be of any interest.<br /><br />This feels more like a film students awkward try to do an arty dogma movie than the work of an experienced director. I've seen a lot of amateur movies with far superior camera-work, scenery, sound and script. This film lacks almost all artistic qualities. I feel as though I'm watching one of Davids home videos, produced during a weekend trip with some friends. | 0neg
|
I finally got to have a look at this experimental Lynch short after waiting for so long....and unfortunately, it wasn't worth it! Even for a die hard Lynch fan, I found this to be really tedious....<br /><br />nothing happens, there are long, long, long painful pauses where nothing happens, long, monotonous speeches where nothing is said and the whole thing finishes with the viewer not knowing, or caring, what the hell it was all about, what happened before and what happened afterward. <br /><br />There was a Mulholland Drive allusion - the blonde girl and the brunette girl were very Diane and Rita -esque, and a Lost Highway moment with allusions to some significant event that happened but cannot be talked about clearly. <br /><br />Unfortunately, It's all very uninteresting and very dull, nothing happens, it's very forgettable and I think i will delete it from my computer and forget I ever watched it. Sorry David! | 0neg
|
Wow, I love and respect pretty much anything that David Lynch has done. However, this movie is akin to a first filmmaker's attempt at making a pseudo art video. <br /><br />To give you a couple of examples: <br /><br />1. David Lynch is typically a visual filmmaker, however, this had little visual artistic content (blank walls, "up shots" with ceiling in the background) <br /><br />2. David Lynch typically takes great pride in audio, however, in this you could even hear the video camera's hum. <br /><br />In fact, it is very hard to swallow the idea that he had anything to do with this movie. unless...<br /><br />...this is a joke, on David's part, to force fans search his website (for hours) only to find this drivel. I hope so, because at least that idea is funny. | 0neg
|
...but this just isn't working and I am surprised to see how many people consider it good. On what grounds? There are some loose hints here and there, but the whole material is self-indulgent and unconvincing. Lynch's movies are generally intriguing because they generate a sense of confusion and yet, are very playful when doing that. There is some visual sense, there are some subplots, characters, ideas etc. But this is dull and yes, pointless. Because whatever there is to explore is either to "small", either too far-fetched, or simply told before in a superior manner. It's just Lynch exploring DV, nothing more so it should be treated like this. 1/10 | 0neg
|
I love all his work but this looks like nothing.. sorry.. This looks more like a "David Lynch copycat". I think people like it only because "it's from David Lynch". | 0neg
|
As hard as it is for me to believe, with all of the awful reality shows out there over the past few years, this one has to take over the top spot for worst one yet. I am still wondering if this was actually just a spoof done by the SCTV gang. If Andy Kaufmann were still alive I'd be sure he was behind this. Can a rock band stoop any lower than has INXS to do such a shameful thing as this? The premise is simple and moronic. Audition a bunch of karaoke rejects to become the new lead singer of INXS, to take the place of Michael Hutchence (who committed suicide in 1997). Eight years and no hits later, the band commit the ultimate act of patheticness by subjecting themselves to auditioning a bunch of talentless wannabes to be the new lead singer of a band that is 20 years past its prime. So they trot all of these awful singers (I thought American Idol had its share of doozies) who do atrocious renditions of just about every classic (and predictable) rock song imaginable. And then they cut to the INXS band members who are seriously discussing the merits of each of these candidates. You could see better (and more original) rock performers at just about any night club in any city in the world.<br /><br />It has all the usual uncreative elements of every other reality show. Lame reality participants, lame interviews, lame host/emcee, lame "judging" of performances, and the lame booting of one participant at the end of each show. Can these shows get any more predictable? It's clearly a publicity stunt on the part of the band; a last gasp of hope at rekindling their lost stardom before they are finally buried into oblivion. Michael Hutchence, if he had any shred of dignity when alive, has to be rolling over in his grave. Not that INXS were ever a great band, but I had no idea they were this pathetic. If INXS are at all representative of what rock and roll has become, this show would be the final proof that rock and roll is once and for all, dead. | 0neg
|
First of all; it's very dilettantish to try describe way of history only from positions of guns, germs and steel. The same tried to do Marxists from economical positions.<br /><br />The reason of Western success can't be just dumb luck, the advantages of domesticated plants and animals. We see, that all around the world any advantages and bonuses are complete useless if they aren't wisely managed. In the Japan there isn't huge natural resources, but Japan is one of the top world economies, the same situation in Singapore, but in Nigeria, country with rich oil resources, there are only middle-low success. Both of this nations had and still have access to Western technology and inventions, but why such gap? <br /><br />In the end of movie Daimond declared, that it's very important to understand factors of guns, germs and steel, to UNDERSTAND. Maybe the main factor of world's difference is not geography, but people ability to understand and use things? The mental ability to understand. And in this case geography is only subordinated. | 0neg
|
This film is an attempt to present Jared Diamonds theory of "Guns, Germs and Steel", explaining how Europeans have dominated much of the globe.<br /><br />The version I saw of this documentary came on 2 discs covering 3 hours. I think the information could have been presented in 20 minutes. There are completely useless scenes of: Professor Jared Diamond watching birds through binoculars, Professor Jared Diamond failing to use a bow and arrow properly, Professor Jared Diamond firing a muzzle-loader badly. Was this documentary supposed to make a hero out of "Professor Jared diamond?". This part of the documentary was so bad, it could have been a spoof. The worst was when Diamond is shown breaking down and weeping when touring the malaria ward in an African hospital. None of this helps me understand his theory of "Guns, Germs and Steel." BTW, "Guns, Germs and Steel" is said about 100 times. "Can the Europeans guns, germs and steel get them out of this dire situation? Stay tuned and find out!" When he finally gets down to business, his theory is equal parts interesting and utterly boring. Europeans conquered the natives peoples of other lands, because they had guns and fine blades against stone and wooden weapons. Do I really need a professor to convince me of this? The parts of his theory that explain how the Europeans came to have the advantages that allow the conquest are interesting, but the coverage is paper-thin.<br /><br />In the end, I think the documentary was only trying to convince me that non-Europeans are as capable as Europeans. If I'm not a racist, I already know this. If I'm a racist, Jared Diamond is not going to convince me with his bumbling use of native implements.<br /><br />I don't think adults are the intended audience for this documentary. Kids may enjoy this more than I, though. I have read that the book from which this documentary is much better than the documentary. | 0neg
|
Jared Diamond made a point in the first episode that other peoples of the world didn't have animals to domesticate but Europeans did, and that accounts for why we were able to make steel and invent complex machines.<br /><br />But then in the third episode he says that when the Europeans in South Africa got too far north they ran into Zulu people and other tribes that *herded cattle and planted crops*. So what explains their lack of technological, economic, and artistic achievement if they had the key things the author claims are needed for success?<br /><br />Diamond also claims germs in the form of smallpox (brought to North America by black slaves) were our biggest weapon. Well, if 150 Europeans can defeat 20,000 native warriors and 400 non-military South Africans can defeat 10,000 Zulus *without a single casualty* in either case, then I think you have to conclude that germs are irrelevant. With or without germs, we were going to succeed.<br /><br />He says Malaria stopped Europeans from colonizing further North, killing "thousands" of Europeans while not affecting Africans. (I'd like to know real numbers but he doesn't say.) Then at the end he says today Malaria is killing thousands of Africans and that is why they can't catch up with us. So which is it, Jared? Did Malaria help the Africans by halting Eurpeans or hurt them? And how come Europe did okay despite massive plagues throughout our history? <br /><br />He also seems far too eager to say that the reasons Europeans succeeded was because of dumb luck. At times when the evidence threatens to overwhelm his rickety theories he's reluctant to admit that maybe Europeans were successful because they worked for it. It's sad watch this obvious neo-Marxist contort reality to try to prove his point. | 0neg
|
It is so rare that I get to rate a movie without having some reservation as to whether I should have gone up one or down one but this one.....Did the explosion rate a notch higher, or one down because my brain hurt trying to CREATE a plot. No, THIS ONE....yeah, a solid, no brainer.....ONE/ten | 0neg
|
It was just a terrible movie. No one should waste their time. Go see something else. This movie is, without a doubt, one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. If you want to see a good movie, don't see Made Men. | 0neg
|
Right away, this film was ridiculous. Not that it didn't have redeeming aspects
For example, the best thing about this film was the beautiful background scenery. Anyone not living on the East Coast should know the South doesn't have beautiful mountains like those found in the West. I knew it was Utah right off the bat, but perhaps Dalton couldn't suppress his English accent, so they had to excuse it by saying this was a southern town. Subverting his accent into a Southern one was easier. Sure the film has plot twists, but its phony sense of place was something I couldn't get past. It's not like Utah doesn't have meth labs... so why the writers thought it necessary to pretend it was in the South is beyond me. <br /><br />One other thing in action pictures always puzzles me. Why do they always make the "cocking" sound effect when the character pulls out an automatic handgun? It seemed every other sound effect in this movie was a "chuk-chich" signifying a 9mm was loaded and ready to fire. Of course, the weapons already had rounds chambered so this was unnecessary. <br /><br />Lastly, the pyrotechnics were WAY over the top. But hey, this film was targeted to a certain 'market segment' I suppose... It's too bad. Each of the actors can act, but this film was lame. | 0neg
|
So this was an HBO "Made for TV Movie" eh? Is that an excuse for such a pathetic plot and terrible acting? Such a shame to see Jim Belushi reduced to a role so repetitive (shot at, survived, lies, beaten up, survives, shot at, lies and so ad infinitum. Call that a script? As for the Brits, embarrassing to see Timothy Dalton's pathetic (or was he just taking the p***, depends how much he was paid I guess?) attempt at a Southern Sheriff). As for that other Brit, the bleached blond one, what a w***er! There is a trend towards glorifying these "English speaking" (sic) super-violent thugs lately, perhaps thanks to Mr. Madonna's two movies succeed in entertaining and justify the violence by skillful use of irony and humour, like Pulp Fiction does. However, this movie discredits and devalues the genre. definately one to miss. | 0neg
|
That's what the title should be, anyway.<br /><br />This movie combines guns, explosives, and mindless killing to make one flop of an "action" movie. Let me make my point in a series of questions: answers type deal.<br /><br />What happens in the movie? People die.<br /><br />Is that it? Yes.<br /><br />What is the plot about? What plot?<br /><br />What is the point the movie is trying to make? Killing is the only solution.<br /><br />What are the characters like? Extremely flawed and contradictive toward their own personalities.<br /><br />Is there anything good about this movie? Yes. I'm sure they used some nice Panavision cameras in filming it.<br /><br />If you like constant killing and greed, then watch the movie. If you happen to be repulsed by such low-standard "entertainment", then "Made Men" is not for you.<br /><br />To sum it up, the plotline stinks, the characters aren't worth their while, the storyline is completely resistable, and nothing fits together.<br /><br />This proves one thing: the actors, directors, and whoever helped make this movie certainly aren't "Made". | 0neg
|
I think "The Best of Times" was a lost cause from the get go. The initial premise (guy drops the winning touchdown pass against a rival high school team, can never seem to get over it and then tries to reunite the two teams to play again) is one of the dumbest I have ever heard. Since Ron Shelton went on to write much better sports films I wonder if there was more to it then that. I hope this film wasn't green lit with Shelton pitching the story as I wrote above.<br /><br />So we have the premise. Going from there you would think, or hope, that there might be a few twists along the way to keep things lively. No such luck. This script follows every predictable cliché you can think of. There isn't a moment in this film you won't see coming a mile away before the film reveals it and the ending.... well if you can't figure out the ending by the end of the first reel then you haven't paid attention or seen any other sports movie in your life.<br /><br />Robin Williams and Kurt Russell star (and bore) in the leads. Williams is the poor schmo who dropped the big pass and Russell is the quarterback who threw the fateful pass. Gee, do you think Russell will suit up just once more to see if he and Williams can right a wrong that the town has never forgotten? This is such a lame duck comedy with a lame duck script that one can only shake their heads wondering what might have been. Sure there are a few chuckles and, to be honest, there is one truly funny scene. Williams and Russell have marital problems and the wives invite them over for dinner to resolve things. Neither guy realizes that they have been invited over on a Monday and, yes, Monday Night Football is on. Keeping in mind that the two teams playing have a combined one victory, the men (Williams especially) try to resist the temptation to find out how the game is going. The scene dissolves into some hilarious bits as Williams goes to check the score by using a bathroom visit as a ruse. When he returns he coughs the score to Russell. Later as Russell is starting to make the moves on his wife Williams wheels the television into their view from another room.<br /><br />It's an inspired and funny scene in a mostly uninspired and stupid movie. | 0neg
|
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Robin Williams fit into the part like a rhino would fit into a tutu, even so his performance was still pitiful. Kurt Russell was more believable but still was awful. The plot left much to be desired and the rest of the acting was also terrible. The only thing this movie had going for it was the trailer, which suckered me in to wasting 90 minutes of my life which could have been better spent trying to lick the back of my head.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and burn this movie if you have it. If not, just be happy you don't. | 0neg
|
Actress Patty Duke wrote an insightful, funny, rough-hewn book about her career as an actress, her crazy-quilt love-life, and her manic depressive episodes and suicide attempts which almost put her away for good. With this rich material to draw from (and Patty playing herself in the final act), one would think a crack TV-director like Gilbert Cates could bring it all together on film, but "Call Me Anna" is a pale shadow of Duke's autobiography. For those who haven't read the book, the sketchy narrative (leaping forward in time) isn't absorbing, we are never allowed to get our bearings with what's happening, and the production seems stunted by a low budget. The actors are miscast, and the value of having Duke herself finally appear does not pay off--the film's phony reality is so thick at this point that Patty can't bring stability to the scenario. It appears as if the producers were sincere enough (and consciousness-minded) to anxiously steer the film towards Duke's ultimate diagnosis and mental freedom, but they left out many dramatic opportunities in the process. | 0neg
|
A truly muddled incomprehensible mess. Most things in the film look more or less like 1987, but then there are futuristic things just thrown in, like the policeman's ray gun. And that car! The director seemed to be in love with colored lights. The only really notable performance was the girl who played Valerie, but since there was no cast listing, I don't know which actress that was. This one is worth missing. Grade: F | 0neg
|
Weak,stale, tired, cliched; wants to be Basic Instinct, but misses opportunity after opportunity for fresh perspectives, new insights. Insipid, trite, grotesque, and without the possibly-redeeming value of brevity; oh, wait...it was only 90 minutes long...it must have just *seemed* a lot longer! I'd rather clean bus station toilets with my toothbrush than have to sit through this again. I'm expressing an opinion here: I guess this means I didn't like it. | 0neg
|
Perhaps because I was so young, innocent and BRAINWASHED when I saw it, this movie was the cause of many sleepless nights for me. I haven't seen it since I was in seventh grade at a Presbyterian school, so I am not sure what effect it would have on me now. However, I will say that it left an impression on me... and most of my friends. It did serve its purpose, at least until we were old enough and knowledgeable enough to analyze and create our own opinions. I was particularly terrified of what the newly-converted post-rapture Christians had to endure when not receiving the mark of the beast. I don't want to spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it so I will not mention details of the scenes, but I can still picture them in my head... and it's been 19 years. | 0neg
|
I was raised in a "very Christian" household since birth. I was saved before I saw this movie and the rest of the series and was forced to watch it in a youth group at my church. This movie was highly disturbing. I saw it when I was about 12 years old and literally had nightmares about it for years. I used to lay awake in bed and listen for the sounds of my mom's footsteps upstairs. If I didn't hear her footsteps, I would sneak upstairs to make sure she hadn't been raptured. I used to pray so hard every night for salvation because I was terrified of Jesus forgetting me. This is definitely not something I will show to my kids until they are much older, if at all. It took me years to shake the fear that this movie gave me. | 0neg
|
First off there is nothing wrong with studying Daniel, Revelation, Matthew 24, Isaiah and other prophetic scriptures. There is also nothing wrong with making a film such as this to attempt to present the gospel message. So my qualms with this movie are not in either its sincerity or aspirations. As a Christian, though an amillenialist, I believe there will be a great tribulation and I believe Christ will return as he said as much. So even though I have disagreement with this film about the rapture that is not why I rate this movie so low.<br /><br />No, what makes me rate this movie so low is not its sincerity or its message, but rather its lack of production values, awful script, mediocre acting, and pitiful FX. This movie ranks down there with some of the cheesiest scifi fodder of the 1950s. No, this movie ranks down there with Plan 9 From Outerspace. This movie failed to age well and was probably dated by the time they made a sequel.<br /><br />The apocalypse genre film producers could have learned how not to make an end times film from this, but they failed. The Left Behind Series, The Apocalypse series, and the Omega Code series all failed to learn from this because they addressed the FX problems and the dated look problem, but their scripts are still poor, and their acting is wooden.<br /><br />There are great Christian films, with extremely low budgets, but this film is not one of them. I'm surprised the MST3K crew never lampooned this one. | 0neg
|
First of all, I saw this movie when I was 7 years old at a Christian Scholl I attended. Needless to say that I was scared out of mind. Not because it was scary but because the content.Cmon...I was 7. Anyway, the cinematography was pretty bad and the acting was cheesy. That's very bad considering that I was only 7 and I remember that. The one thing that still haunts me is that dreadful song "I wish we all were ready" where the chorus ends with "...you were left behind". I wouldn't suggest seeing this one. I probably will, just for nostalgic reason. Besides, I'm sure the remake is much better. The best part of this movie though, has to be when everyone "dissapears"; vacant cars crashing, lawnmowers running on their own...pretty hilarious. | 0neg
|
As some other comments show, this movie might scare you, when you're a little child. (And that is probably all that it is good for.)<br /><br />However, if you're older, this movie only does one thing: suck majorly -and thereby I don't mean the acting, its soundtrack, cutting or s.th. like that. I'm simply talking about the "plot" (if you can call it that). <br /><br />SPOILERS ahead ------------------------<br /><br />I don't want to give any more spoilers than necessary (if after reading this, you really still want to watch this movie) but if you graduated from any school, this is just a big insult of your intelligence. When watching this, I was stunned most of the time, because what was happening was just THAT stupid.<br /><br />This includes:<br /><br />-the forming of UNITE (an evil UN-association) <br /><br />--> we are just supposed to believe it's evil. is it even evil at all? if so: why is it evil?<br /><br />-the mark of evil in the form of a tattoo <br /><br />--> there is no necessity to impose this on the people, so why the hell (no pun intended) are they doing it? <br /><br />-inviting Christ to your heart merely as lip service <br /><br />-->because there's nothing anybody, who in this movie is considered "a real Christian", ever does, besides saying that stupid prayer. so...just say that prayer before the rapture and you're saved - no matter what?! <br /><br />Thus, rating 1/10 | 0neg
|
Written and acted by sincere amateurs, produced by some exploitation monger, this is dull and hard to watch.<br /><br />Not the worst movie ever, but at least schlock like _Plan 9 From Outer Space_ usually had a real actor or two. I'd recommend _A Thief In The Night_ only to hardcore ironists and hardcore Dispensationalists. I'm neither.<br /><br />Don't believe me? Watch it for free (albeit sourced from poor VHS) here: http://www.archive.org/details/Thief-In-The-Night<br /><br />Relevant links added mostly to reach IMDb's 10-line minimum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/3199/thief-in-the-night-se-a/ | 0neg
|
I was forced to watch this whole series of films as a young child and I was told they were REAL! Talk about child abuse. I would have been less frightened of Dracula or Frankenstein. This series is only good for people who believe in this ridiculousness and who want to indoctrinate their children into believing the same. Besides the obvious issues associated with brainwashing and indoctrination, there's also the bad acting, bad writing, and BAD "special effects". They are just all around terrible, terrible movies. Yes, believable (and horrifying) to a kid, but I can't imagine a grown-up buying into this shlock. Although, I must say, that I would be interested in seeing them today, as an adult. They might have a certain midnight/cult movie feel to them. | 0neg
|
This is an interesting treatment of a subject that is quite controversial, (just read the other comments on this film). Apparently, you either love it or hate it and it seems most people make that distinction based on whether they believe the tribulation and end times will happen as portrayed in the movie.<br /><br />Basically, the film - and its sequels - were made for about $1.30 each. The production values are right down there with "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and the acting is about on the same level as "Glen or Glenda", (my apologies to Ed Wood). Putting aside the religious message, the story is as scary as they come. Add in even the slightest thought that the story might actually be close to something that might happen in the future and it becomes even scarier.<br /><br />This movie, and its sequels, didn't try to bring in the reasons why the tribulation happened when it did. "Left Behind" and "The Omega Code" tried to get in everything "Thief" did and to explain all the politics and maneuvering in the Middle East leading up to it. The net effect was "Thief" did a much better job on the scary part of movie, instead of spreading itself too thin trying to explain what was happening in the Middle East at the same time. <br /><br />Forget the politics and watch this movie, and its sequels, for what they are - horror stories. That they may be horror stories told, indirectly, by God makes them just that much more frightening. If it makes you think about the subject, it has done its job - even if you never believe. | 0neg
|
I saw this movie twice through a pentecostal church my family attended in Nanaimo BC in the 1970's. I was of the tender age of 6, my brother 4, then again when I was 8 my brother 6. This movie terrified my brother and I and shaped how we viewed the world with distrust. It wasn't just the movie, but it was also the philosophy that engulfs so many "christians" about the "mark of the beast"and the rapture. This movie, the church, and a volatile neglectful upbringing, lead to severe paranoia towards the future. For years, I lived under the delusional affects of the church and fear of being forgotten by Christ. I am now 40 years old. Went through years of counseling. I once explained to a psychiatrist this movie and the belief system of the church and family. I was pegged with a delusional disorder. I actually began to believe this, it was my brother who reminded me, that this cultic philosophy actually happened. I no longer fear the future, I have come to terms with the fear injected into it's members by the church. I have taken this experience to fulfill a purpose, I am nearing my licensure as a Psychologist specializing in childhood trauma. | 0neg
|
The sects that capitalise on this film are well known for their claim to take the 'message' of the bible without any alteration or extra-biblical influence. The existence of this film is solely due to the fact that there is no such thing.<br /><br />If you want to know what the born-again branch of Christianity were harping on about in the seventies just look up the word 'rapture' in a dictionary of cults and sects. It's quicker than sitting through this waste of celluloid.<br /><br />Poor acting, uneven sound quality and a script that could just as easily have been written by Jack T Chick (paranoid Christian conspiracy theorist for those not familiar with the Evangelical scene). You could not really put this into the 'so bad it's good' category so its only audience are either those with a pamphlet collection looking to branch out or the extremely paranoid. | 0neg
|
I remember being forced (yes--literally FORCED) to see this film by a Southern Baptist Preacher when I was a kid, and even then I loved its awfulness. It's designed to scare poor suckers into being "saved." The only thing that "saved" me was the fact that it finally ended and I could go out and have a REAL life.<br /><br />Check out the chapter on this film in Sarah Diamond's book "The Politics of the Christian Right." FASCINATING. And certainly more interesting than the movie! | 0neg
|
Two films are useful for scaring people to God, this and 'Event Horizon'. One has a significant and poignant message, the other is as one-dimensional as a religious movie can get. Too bad Paul Anderson went on to the accursed Resident Evil movies, he really had something going.<br /><br />Thief in the Night is hampered by many obvious independent film attributes (acting, storytelling, dialog, and persuasion) and it's obvious what the film's intentions are from the start. The Christian film industry hasn't learned from the failures of this, so we are stuck with The Omega Code, Left Behind, and the other Tribulation movies. Their underlying element is that they are so concerned with selling their message: "Get saved, folks!" that everything else becomes second to whacking the audience over the head with a Bible.<br /><br />Overall, I can't believe I'm even writing this much about a movie this ineffective. Skip it entirely and go back to Sam Neil gouging out his eyeballs. 1 out of 5. | 0neg
|
Is this film a joke? Is it a comedy? Surely it isn't a serious thriller? There is no suggestion that there is any intended humor, but on quite a few occasions the poor acting, poor directing, and appalling script had the audience laughing out loud in the cinema. The plot is acceptable - a promising young artist just reaching his peak shot dead by an assassin he walks in on by mistake. The killer sees the young artists work portfolio he is carrying and decides to attend an exhibition of his work. At the exhibition the assassin meets the dead artists sister and they end up falling in love. It is all very predictable stuff and the end will not have anyone guessing as it is so poorly scripted. The film takes place mainly in and around Vienna, Austria, and shows what a beautiful city it is. Do not waste your time on this film though, unless you are studying how NOT to act, direct or script a film! | 0neg
|
Imagine pulling back the mask of a lethal assassin and finding Barbara Cartland there... that's what happens with this film.<br /><br />The opening showed promise, but soon it drops all pretenses of being a thriller (or even an imaginative love story) and the only reason they made this story becomes abundantly clear: to fill a gap in their female viewing market by creating yet another re-hash of 'mis-understood, brooding bad-boy' (Andrei) meets 'innocent, whimsical beauty' (Paula). <br /><br />Rather than waste any time in creating an original premise, the filmmakers went straight for the money-shot: the bad boy being tamed by said whimsical beauty. Thence follows a string of insincere and heavily-clichéd love scenes sprinkled with pseudo philosophical/poetic fluff. Andrei's admission of being (eponymously) a 'poet' is levered in to round out the perceived qualities a Byronic hero should have - but even when we're told in heavy, underlined writing who and what he is, it's still difficult to believe it - or care.<br /><br />For a Byronic hero/antihero to work, the story needs subtlety, style and innovation - all of which are utterly absent here. This is not a modern day Phantom of the Opera, it's just what happens when a weak and rather silly woman (with loose knicker elastic) dates a bad man, who, after meeting her, seems as dangerous as bunny slippers.<br /><br />The performances might have saved this film, had they been any good: the female lead is preoccupied with looking sexy and 'otherworldly', no matter how forced or ridiculous; and poor Dougray Scott appears to have been drugged as he shambles through his part. This is not his best work. The glimmers of interest were brought by Jürgen Prochnow as 'Vashon', and Andrew Lee Potts as the young photographer/brother. A better movie would have offed the sister and kept the brother instead. | 0neg
|
Chris Rock deserves better than he gives himself in "Down To Earth." As directed by brothers Chris & Paul Weitz of "American Pie" fame, this uninspired remake of Warren Beatty's 1978 fantasy "Heaven Can Wait," itself a rehash of 1941's "Here Comes Mr. Jordan," lacks the abrasively profane humor that won Chris Rock an Emmy for his first HBO special. Predictably, he spouts swear words from A to Z, but he consciously avoids the F-word. Anybody who saw this gifted African-American comic in "Lethal Weapon 4," "Dogma," or "Nurse Betty" knows he can elicit more laughter with the F-word than Martin Lawrence and Eddie Murphy put together. Sadly, despite a few witty one-liners, "Down To Earth" hits Rock bottom both as a contrived comedy and an improbable interracial romance.<br /><br />"Down to Earth" utterly destroys any good will that the Weitz Brothers generated with their landmark gross-out face "American Pie." This disposable drivel qualifies as a contrived as well as confusing comedy with a thoroughly improbable color-blind interracial romance. Unfortunately, a more than competent castamong them "The Full Monty's" Mark Addy, Chazz Palminteri of "Analyze This," "SCTV's" Eugene Levy, and newcomer Brian Rhodes as Charles Wellington, Jr.are wasted in flat-footed, sketchy roles. Hardcore Rock fans will undoubtedly accuse their favorite comedian with trying to fix something that was never broken. Abysmally written by Lance Crouther, Ali Le Roi, Louis CK, and Rock, "Down To Earth" casts Chris as a messenger who rides a bike by day in the Big Apple and gets booed off the stage at night in Harlem's celebrated Apollo Theatre. Poor Lance Barton (Chris Rock) suffers from severe stage fright. Nevertheless, his charitable manager Whitney Daniels (Frankie Faison of "Hannibal") sticks with him through thick and thin. After Lance learns the Apollo Theatre will hold one final amateur night extravaganza, he implores Whitney to get him in the line-up. Excuse me, but if Lance is such a deadbeat stand-up comic, why does the Apollo keep inviting him back? Meanwhile, fate has something else in store for Lance. While pedaling home on his bike, our protagonist spots a pretty lady, Sontee (Regina King of "Jerry Maguire"), crossing the street, but he doesn't see the bus that collides with him and kills him. Wham! Lance Barton levitates skyward with a halo wreathed around his head. In Heaven, which resembles a cruise ship nightclub, Lance learns that an overzealous angel, Mr. Keyes (Eugene Levy of "Stay Tuned"), timed his death 40 years ahead of schedule.<br /><br />Heavenly honcho Mr. King (Chazz Palminteri of "Analyze This"), God's right-hand guy, apologizes and escorts Lance back to earth. The snag is Lance cannot reclaim his corpse, so he must inhabit another body. The best that Mr. Keyes can come up with is ruthless, white, 60-year old tycoon Charles Wellington. Wellington's adulterous wife Amber (Jennifer Coolidge of "American Pie") and his unscrupulous personal aide Winston (Greg Germann of "Sweet November") have just tried to poison him. Reluctantly, before Wellington's body vanishes, Lance accepts it conditionally as a loaner until Keyes can locate a more appropriate body. Meanwhile, Lance-as-Wellington encounters Sontee again. She is a nurse activist protesting his decision to privatize a Brooklyn community hospital that serves the poor. While Regina King brings a surfeit of charisma to her role as a crusading health care worker, she plays a character who bypasses credible motivation in her affairs with Wellington. Although he is no longer black, Lance not only tries to woo Sontee but also win a gig at the Apollo.<br /><br />"Down To Earth" features Rock in his most unfunny role. The comedian's reason for making this movie seems questionable. Reportedly, he ate lunch with Warren Beatty and told Beatty that he loved the original script that scenarist Elaine May had penned for Beatty. Initially, Beatty tried the race-reversal gimmick himself in his own version by trying to cast Muhammad Ali in the title role of "Heaven Can Wait." The deal fell through, and Beatty headlined the movie himself. According to Rock, his longtime co-writers and he thought that they could 'annihilate' this classic. Moreover, he justified his choice of "Heaven Can Wait" based on his philosophy to "Do Something you can only do when you're hot." Earlier, Rock rejected a script about a busload of touring rappers, because he saw little opportunity to stretch his image in such an outing. As a lifeless comedian in "Down to Earth," Rock doesn't so much stretch his image as he inverts it for the worst! This half-baked concert film with an annoying plot does as much to cremate his comic reputation as it does the Weitz Brothers! You know a film about a comedian is in dire straits when a scene at the nightclub is played so you cannot hear the jokes, only the laughter. Similarly, the casting of Mark Addy as Wellington's butler who speaks the Queen's English but is in reality a commoner from Michigan defies logic, too. Addy is an actual Englishman, and he doesn't have to fake an accent; his accent is genuine. The major overriding quandary with "Down to Earth" is the on-again-off-again, look-a-like switcheroo that the characters make so Chris Rock doesn't disappear completely from the sight for more than a few seconds. Although Chris spends half the movie as white guy Wellington, audiences see him largely as Lance, undercutting the comic irony of watching his stocky, bald-headed, Caucasian white, alter-ego perform ghetto humor and chant derogatory hip-hop lyrics. Incredibly, Rock served double-duty as the film's executive producer and one of its four scribes. The mystery is how such a wealth of talent could grind out such an awkward, misguided muddle of a comedy. About the only redeeming feature of "Down to Earth" is Jamshied Sharifi's superb orchestral film score. | 0neg
|
Chris Rock, apparently desperate for a cozy star-vehicle which would cross his appeal over to white and mainstream black audiences, updates the hit 1978 comedy "Heaven Can Wait" with an urban agenda. He plays a struggling comedian involved in a car accident who has his soul removed too soon from his body--consequently, his angels must find another body to place him in, and can only come up with that of a white businessman. Rewriting a movie as bland and sentimental as "Heaven Can Wait" only shows that Rock's eye was on the box-office (this was strictly a corporate move organized by the most mercenary of Hollywood players). Why not strive for something loftier or more memorable than a silly reincarnation comedy that culminates with an Evening at the Apollo? Terrific supporting cast (including the usually-reliable Regina King, the wonderful Mark Addy, Wanda Sykes, Eugene Levy, and terrific Frankie Faison) do what they can, but Rock seems awkward and unsure of himself throughout. *1/2 from **** | 0neg
|
The main character Lance Barton gets killed and to heaven before his time. When heaven learns about the mistake he is given the body of just deceased rich old and white Mr. Wellington.<br /><br />A young black guy in a old white mans body still behaving like the young black man is maybe funny if you see it done by an old white actor. In this movie I ended up reminding myself several times: "Chris Rock is supposed to be an old white guy".<br /><br />The whole concept does not play as intended: The "illusion" is not transported well and the love story is not believable at all. The fact that all you see is Chris Rock playing a young black guy, because the old white person everyone is supposed to see is only shown in small scenes, is to much of a challenge for the viewers "suspension of disbelief". | 0neg
|
Black guy becomes rich white guy, and rich white guy seems to embrace hip-hop culture, and most of the "funny" moments of this film play off of this. The problem I have is that it doesn't work and almost never works.<br /><br />OK, so no one would expect Lance to grab a body like that and suddenly start acting like Charles Wellington. That would be too much to ask. I'll grant that. But at the same time, it goes too far the other direction. I'm supposed to imagine a rich white guy singing rap and completely upending things, playing like he's a bastion of hip-hop culture, and people just *accept* him? And what about Sontee, who falls in love with him *as a rich white guy*, even though she doesn't care about his money or power? This is so completely unbelievable it's not even funny.<br /><br />I just couldn't suspend disbelief and I couldn't finish the movie. I added one extra star because it did make me laugh, even hard, a couple of times. But I just couldn't get get past the whole "white guy doing hip hop" thing that has never been well done in any movie I've ever seen that tries it. This was no exception. | 0neg
|
This movie is a re-write of the 1978 Warren Beatty movie, "Heaven Can Wait", but it is written for the stand-up comedic style of Mr Rock. The premise remains the same: Lance Barton, (Rock) is taken before his life time is up and works a deal with God's representative, Mr King, to come back to earth as someone else. As in Beatty's movie; he chooses the murdered Charles Wellington, a rich white man, all because he fancies Sontee Jenkins (Regina King) who happens to turn up at Wellington's house during the murder. The role of Mrs Wellington and her lover suffers in this remake and the idea to turn an aged white multi-millionaire into a stand up black comedian who tries to woo Sontee simply does not work. Also the intercuts used to show Rock as Wellington and then as the real 'white' Wellington, fail miserably. Improvements could have been made to the original Beatty plot - which in itself did not masterfully portray the life-after-death idea - but they certainly were not to be found in "Down To Earth". | 0neg
|
DOWN TO EARTH / (2001) * (out of four)<br /><br />By Blake French:<br /><br />"Down to Earth" is such a mislead and desperate comedy it makes sitting home on the couch watching a Chris Rock standup-comedy act on TV look like heaven. Speaking of heaven, the film is based on the 1978 movie "Heaven Can Wait." That was a good movie, and this is good-to demonstrate how a group of aspiring screenwriters can take decent material and turn it into garbage. Directors Chris and Paul Weitz miss nearly every target. From concept to storytelling, "Down to Earth" fails miserably; this is one incredibly bad production.<br /><br />Chris Rock is a lousy standup comedian, both in his role in this movie and in the real life. He plays Lance Barton, whose manager, (Frankie Faison) even feels sorry for him when he is booed off stage during amateur night at a local theatre. Soon after the script establishes his lack of talent, the character is killed by a speeding truck. Death, played by Eugene Levy, has made a mistake, taking Lance before his number was up. God's assistant (Chazz Palminteri) is very angry and decides to let Lance make up the remainder of his time on Earth, as long as he takes the only available body of a 60 year old white millionaire.<br /><br />The old man's name is Mr. Wellington, whose life has problems of its own. His wife (Jennifer Coolidge) is having an affair with his assistant (Greg Germann), who is robbing him of his money. But that's all right because Lance, inside Mr. Wellington, has fallen in love with a young black woman named Sontee (Regina King.) Meanwhile, there are plots to kill Wellington, Lance attempting to get a better body, and Sontee's confused feelings dealing with a hospital situation involving Mr. Wellington's finances.<br /><br />"Down to Earth" has some good ideas, but they are in a pointless and unconvincing love story filled with contrivances and recycled material. The biggest problem it runs into is how we perceive Lance as Mr. Wellington. Chris Rock is the actor with popularity and publicity, so he is not going to be absent from most of this movie; all of the characters see the new Lance as Mr. Wellington, but we see him as Chris Rock. This is convenient for the love story; we believe a young woman would fall for Lance, but in reality, he is actually an old, gray-haired geezer. That is not so convincing.<br /><br />The one-joke comic situation is supposed to be watching an old man doing funny things that are really done by a young black man. But what inspires laughter is when characters run into conflicts without their knowledge. Just look at "There's Something About Mary." In the funny scenes the characters are exposed to awkward experiences, and not at their will. Here, Lance knows he is in an old man's body, and does things old men would not normally do. If Lance did not know the body he was in then that may have had potential.<br /><br />Another problem with the concept: we never knew Mr. Wellington in the first place, so how can we compare Lance in his body when we do not know what he was like originally. To top everything off, Chris Rock needs to be the center of attention here, and makes the character too much like Rock. He recites simple standup routine jokes that are tedious and painful; his dialogue is so obvious, wooden and straightforward. I hated the film's sense of humor. There are so many unfunny jokes and horrible comic situations. It is like watching Chris Rock being Chris Rock, not a character in a movie.<br /><br />Let's emphasize the positives in "Down to Earth." Mark Addy does not do any worse here than he did in "The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas." Eugene Levy and Chazz Palmentari are well cast, but they are at the mercy of a scalped script. Those are all the good qualities I can mention at this time, and if you give me another week to recollect, it is not likely that I will come up with any more. | 0neg
|
When I first heard about "Down To Earth," I was pretty excited. I'm a pretty big fan a Chris Rock, he was especially hilarious in Dogma. But this film proved to be a disappointment. Chris Rock's performance was not nearly as good as his past performances, and the movie was just very badly directed as a whole.<br /><br />First off, Chris Rock. He plays the entire movie as a standup comedy routine. Obviously, this works fine in the scenes where he's supposed to be doing standup, but in the rest of the movie, it doesn't. Even when he's talking to one other character, he seems to think he's trying to make a roomful of people laugh. He has a few funny moments, but they mostly come during the standup scenes (no wonder they decided to make his character a comedian). As for the rest of the cast, they're pretty much there just to give Rock someone to talk to, none of them stand out.<br /><br />Also, the movie was poorly directed. The movie has basically a one-joke plot: old white guy acting like a young black comedian. While I prefer movies with more than one joke, this still could have worked, and been quite funny. The problem was, we saw too much of Rock and not enough of the old white guy. It's supposed to be funny because it's this white guy telling Chris Rock's jokes, but for most of the time, we just see Chris Rock, so it's not nearly as funny. The few scenes where they decide to show us the white guy talking like Rock are, in fact, hilarious. If he had been shown more, the movie would have been a lot funnier.<br /><br />Overall, a few moments of laughter can't make up for the fact that "Down To Earth" is poorly acted, and poorly directed. This one was a pretty big disappointment.<br /><br />Rating: 4/10 | 0neg
|
DARK REMAINS is a low budget American horror movie that somehow managed to win 2 awards.<br /><br />The plot seems to involve 2 separate strands. First, a woman commits suicide by slashing her wrists whilst bathing. Second, the young daughter of a technical writer is found with her throat slashed. The grieving couple decide to move to an isolated cabin in the mountains. It later transpires that the cabin and surrounding locations are haunted.<br /><br />As the movie goes on, the 2 separate strands of story eventually converge as one might reasonably expect. However, the execution is haphazard and results in confusion that could perhaps only be resolved by multiple viewings. Unfortunately, the movie is simply not enticing enough to attract most viewers into watching it more than once.<br /><br />Just about everything that could go wrong with this movie goes wrong - and fast! And the low budget cannot be used to justify all of the shortcomings found here.<br /><br />I believe it would be wrong to pass judgement on the actors involved in this production as the material was simply too poor.<br /><br />The characters are uninteresting as pointed out by other reviewers on this site. The badly written script introduces too many people without giving them interesting dialogue, without creating opportunities for character-driven situations and without adding depth to any of them.<br /><br />The direction is uninspired. The inspiration from J-Horror movies such as RINGU, THE GRUDGE and ONE MISSED CALL is evident. Unfortunately, the directors of DARK REMAINS did not pay close attention to the style of J-Horror. J-Horror works so effectively because it plays on fear of the unknown. Tension is created by constant shifts between a bizarre situation (a ghost on a CCTV camera walking towards it for example), and the reaction of a central character who is faced with it without any warning. There is no humour or tongue-in-cheek element in these movies. Everything is played so straight and without remorse or limitations that you can't help but be convinced and captivated by it. The foreboding atmospheres set up the suspense and ensures the horror has psychological impact, very much unlike the "jump scares" used in Hollywood movies.<br /><br />The directors of DARK REMAINS made a brave attempt to avoid Hollywood clichés and also successfully avoided using CGI. The homage to J-Horror could have been well intended. Unfortunately, the lack of inspiration is likely to make the viewer laugh at the supposed "scares" on the screen. The make-up effects of the "ghosts" weren't too bad given the low budget but their actions just defied logic. I was scratching my head quite a few times during this movie.<br /><br />I couldn't give away the ending even if I wanted to. I simply couldn't understand it. All I could deduce was that it was something of an anti-climax.<br /><br />What remains? The answer as a reviewer on a different website has pointed out is boredom. The movie is a chore to sit through. Thankfully, the pain ends after an hour and a half. However, most would probably switch off long before the end.<br /><br />There are only 2 positive things I could find in this movie - the successful avoidance of scare clichés and the absence of the "f-word" in every single sentence like one would normally expect to find. This is what the 2 stars are for.<br /><br />Those who like supernatural or psychological horror relating to ghosts and haunting might do well to stick to movies such as THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, THE CHANGELING or the J-Horror sub-genre.<br /><br />If you think you have seen too many established movies and want to see an obscure ultra-low budget "R-rated" horror movie about ghosts, watch DEATH OF A GHOST HUNTER. It may not be the greatest horror movie ever made but it is surely a lot better than DARK REMAINS and does have a few genuine surprises in store.<br /><br />I advise everyone to avoid DARK REMAINS like the plague. | 0neg
|
Granted, I'm not the connoisseur d'horror my partner is, but a well put together, clever flick is worth the time. My quibbles, in brief:<br /><br />- Dialog often weak and at times unbelievable coming from the given character.<br /><br />- Unconvincing acting.<br /><br />- Storyline never really caught fire.<br /><br />The writers plucked choice bits from half a dozen mainstream films, tossed into a kettle, simmered not nearly enough and tried feeding us poor saps the resulting mess, al'dente.<br /><br />Long and short, while not absolutely terrible, it was definitely not worthy of absorbing one of my NetFlix rentals. | 0neg
|
I think I agree that a lot of the comments here must be fake. Even if the movie is not necessarily bad its definitely below average. "Dark Remains" is basically a Ghost Movie with a premise of your own ghosts and bad emotions haunting you. The movie starts off already with 2 stories loosely inter-webbed which even later are not tied together. A couple loses its child which is found slashed in its bed. They move to a country house to flee their past and guess what... the house is haunted, kind of. From here on Dark Remains starts off very slow with some scary moments indeed (The first ghost appearances are nice and the flashlight sequence also worked very good). OK, then... Woman sees ghost of daughter, other ghosts of people died in accidents or suicides appear, man tries to solve secret of houses past, woman gets depressed, strange neighbors appear. Its pretty much all been there, but the premise of it being their own emotions is nice, so you wait for the twist. There is no twist, you are just confused by a haunted house history story, the strange neighbor, a totally pointless creepy prison and the dead daughter thrown together with a photo-idea reminding me a lot of "The shutter". The end is ridiculous because when you start and end a movie this slow and with piano music its pretty lame to include some hoards of ghosts at once which look like a zombie flick, of course just to return to slow pacing and piano music. <br /><br />To make it short... Dark Remains could have been a nice scary ghost story if the script was not trying to go everywhere and arriving nowhere.Too many stories mushed together which just don't make any sense and contradict in the basic atmosphere of the movie. And beside... please never use abandoned prisons again. Its so worn off and in this case it even makes no sense at all. "Hey, there is this creepy prison uphill, lets shoot there". I guess a lot of ingredients in Dark Remains were thrown in the mix like this. | 0neg
|
For all of the hype about this film, I kept an open mind as to what I would ultimately think. And, although a bit slow at times, the first 90% of the movie is quite good, with more than a few "old time" scares that make one jumpy and unsettled. I actually thought the cinematography was excellent regarding many of these scenes. Where Dark Remains fails, however, is in its climax. The ending of the film and the denouement are what seems to be MILES APART from its body. The storyline completely falls on its face with an illogical conclusion and, the answer I was seeking most - what REALLY happened to Emma? - was not elucidated upon! The rationale for the negative energy was ludicrous at best, and in the end, I felt very cheated. What could have been a superb horror film was ultimately haunted by a terrible ending. | 0neg
|
How many fricken' times do we have to see a spook walking by in the background & peaking through a mirror's reflection? It's been done in two dozen movies in recent memory & four dozen times in this choppy, poorly done film. There were only two freaky moments to appreciate....when the ghosts invaded the personal spaces of two characters. Speaking of characters, the acting was as flat as the Diet Coke in the 64 oz. cup I was drawing it from. The side characters could have been pulled from various Scooby Doo cartoons. There was the friendly, aged sheriff. There was the kooky weirdo living in the backwoods with the Alabama drawl. Lots'o'characters with no development. The most disturbing image was that of a murdered child in the beginning. But rather than explore the child's murder, which would have been interesting, they just let us know that she was dead & her parents had a hard time reconciling her death with the community & each other. When they reach the cabin, the scenes rarely flowed together....with flashing images of the dead daughter interjected here & there. Oh...and the eerie sounds were also overdone. You know what I mean....creaking doors that open by themselves, crickets in the forest, yada yada yada. Ooooohhhh. Haven't seen that before. Again, you'll see the amazing self-opening door in the movie over and over an over again. NOTE TO DIRECTOR: a scary scene is only scary if it's not repeated every 5 minutes in the same film. Think these things out before calling out "it's a wrap!" | 0neg
|
I really looked forward to seeing Nana after seeing Renoir amazing debut work, Whirlpool of Fate. I had read that Nana was generally considered his best silent film so I had high hopes. Sadly this felt like a huge step backwards.<br /><br />Catherine Hessling is the main problem with this film. Her acting is over the top, even for a silent film. Her acting is more like what one would expect in a film from the early teens, not the late 20s. She usually has the same face, which reminds me (sorry to say) of someone with constipation pains. It was also very difficult to believe that any man would fall for this femme fatale. There was nothing charming about her at all.<br /><br />The film was also quite long drawn, the camera work was uninteresting (aside from a shot of a horse race) and the editing was dull. The story reminded me of Pabst's Pandora's Box. It is interesting to compare the two because there are only 3 years between these films. Pandora's Box simply scores on every level where Nana fails.<br /><br />This film is only for Renoir completists or very serious silent films buffs. | 0neg
|
What a dog of a movie. Noni Hazelhurst's performance is quite good, but it sits amidst a jungle of abhorrent scriptwriting, mediocre direction and wooden acting from the bulk of the cast. Many of the characters are woefully miscast, particularly the ever overrated Colin Friels.<br /><br />Very little works in this pretentious garbage. Much of the "character development" is done through a silly, angst-ridden voice over and frequently completely contradicts the behaviour of characters on-screen. In fact, it's hard to even figure out who the voice overs are talking about because they describe such different characters to who we see on screen! How are we meant to know Colin Friels (Javo) is meant to be an erratic, violent and unreliable junkie? One of these silly voice overs tells us. For crying out loud, the nature of his character is half the point of the movie and the only thing that lets us know is a flippin' voice over! The real killer is the characters. Everything about them. Their clothes are perfectly maintained and look fresh from the rack, despite the fact we are constantly reminded they are meant to be artsy paupers. They are all absurdly well-spoken for "junkies". None seem to have any real comprehension of life on the skids or on smack and yet this is meant to be the case with most of them.<br /><br />Monkey Grip deserves no more attention than a weekday TV movie matinée. Crud like this, perfectly well shot and technically presented, but a cliché-driven angsty drama that shoots so wide of being plausible and meanders about for hours without really going anywhere. At least Noni gets down to her birthday suit at every given opportunity. There's no other sane reason to endure this junk. | 0neg
|
Hi, May be because I am not a Theater major or a sophisticated movie watcher ... I think this movie is "Boring" and "Dumb".<br /><br />I rented this movie because of Charles Bronson and it's title ... but boy what a waste of time ... just watching 2 guys sitting in a vault and talking ...<br /><br />The movie on this DVD was so "DARK" ... I had hard time watching the darn movie ... I realize it is a 1968 movie ... but they are putting it on a DVD then they should do some digital remastering.<br /><br />Also, I was totally surprised to see these high marks on IMDb for this movie ... like I said before I am not as sophisticated as the other folks who commented on this movie earlier. | 0neg
|
this, is NOT one of those films it is one of the biggest pieces of tripe I have ever scene, the camera work is trying to be flashy but it really just crap the whole thing looks like the red shoe diaries, but without the sex, the only reason I bought this was I wanted to try out dvd and this was the cheapest one I could find, possibly the worst buy of my life and could have put you off dvd forever, the soundtrack is REALLY tacky and most of the movie is made up of endless repeats of clips from the first two films, why anyone would want to make a movie as awful as this is beyond me, if they had really attempted to make an original movie and failed I would be nicer in this review but they don't they just got the rights to reproduce stuff from the first two and then edit it and repeat it into this film with about maybe under 1 3rd original footage which is about up to the standards of film school students, DO NOT buy this movie. the only entertainment this dvd can offer is if you were to stick it in the microwave and watch the flashing lights! UTTER UTTER UTTER UTTTER unbelievable GARBAGE! 0/10 if only the voting system would allow that. | 0neg
|
I won't waste a whole lot of time of this one because as far as I'm concerned it isn't really a movie to start with, just a careless mish-mash of borrowed footage and embarrassingly amateurish new footage made solely for the purpose of pasting the whole mess together and call it a "Boogeyman" sequel. Literally 80% of this film is stolen from its far superior predecessor "The Boogeyman", a film that the writers of this garbage apparently didn't even bother to watch because they couldn't even get actress Suzanna Love's original character's name (Lacy) right. And to add insult to injury the killer is invisible in the original footage and visible in the new footage, apparently they think their audience is as stupid as they are. 0 out of 10 and I wish IMDb's rating system went that low, the most callous and blatant attempt to rip off people's money I've even seen, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! | 0neg
|
The original Boogeyman was a silly but entertaining supernatural slasher flick. It was by no means a great film but fun in the right frame of mind. The third instalment in this series, Return of the Boogeyman, on the other hand, is simply atrocious. It consists of two things. Firstly, cheap and lifeless new footage. Secondly, LOADS of recycled bits from the first movie. The new material is unbelievably amateurish but not in an amusingly inept way, simply incredibly tedious. This footage has clearly been knocked together quickly and without any effort. It serves as a framing device for the endless clips from the first (and possibly second) movies. And boy, do they milk those clips from the earlier films; sometimes reusing sequences over and over again. The only new addition to these parts is a voice over that pointlessly describes exactly what we can see with our own eyes. The whole experience of watching this is truly mind-numbing.<br /><br />Return of the Boogeyman is an example of the very worst kind of exploitation flick; the kind that exploits the audience in a highly cynical way. I want to keep this review brief and to the point because this film deserves no more. There is nothing here of value at all. This is worthless. | 0neg
|
in fact,it's basically the same movie.and they couldn't even get the time line of events correct.maybe that was intentional due to laziness or not caring.either way,this thing is a real woofer.it doesn't even deserved to be called a movie.i viewed this as a so called second feature on the disc containing the original The Boogeyman.i thought my head would explode,and i urge you to run as far in the opposite direction of this thing,if you should be cursed with the misfortune of combing across it's path.it should come with a warning label like:Warning-may cause your i.q to drop several points if you are within it's vicinity.for me,there's no doubt this thing is a 0/10 | 0neg
|
Let me just say I loved the original Boogeyman. Sure, it's a flawed clichéd 80s horror movie, but hey those types are fun to watch! And plus it gave us something a bit different. So I gladly bought it and to my surprise this movie came along with it (only copy they had actually) so I thought "Eh, what the hell" and bought it. Mistake #1. So that night I felt in the mood to watch a movie (I actually bought tons that day) and figured this was the shortest out of all the ones I bought so I'll just watch this and hit the sack. Mistake #2. Yes, I have heard how bad it was but I was willing to take a chance.<br /><br />So a few minutes into the movie and there's the first flashback. I think nothing of it at first. Then the new footage with the prediction of the chick in the bathtub and I'm kinda liking the direction it's going in. Then the next flashback which is a bit longer and I'm sitting there thinking "Yes I've seen the first Boogeyman! I know what happens so move along!" Then the next one comes up and I figure screw it and fast forward through it. Then the final one (Maybe I fast forwarded through the explanation but why was she lying topless on the mirror? At least she could've shown them!) and I decide to fast forward through it and then the climax and the movie was over! WTF? What happened to the prediction stuff? What happened to the long hair dude (Did he tap that or what?)? And more importantly what kind of weed was the writer and director smoking when making this awful POS??!!! And what was the point? Was Annie just having flashbacks of what happened in the first movie? Or was the stuff from the first movie just happening at the same time as this? The latter could make sense because the stabbing of Pantyhose Face happened in 1978 according to the characters in this movie and it was 15 years later. Wait a minute, no it wouldn't! Because Lacey (who the movie questionably renamed Nancy! Is Uli too dumb to remember his movie characters' names?) would be 20 years old since she was 5 when that happened and not only is she married to someone who looks 30ish but also has a kid who looks around 7 and 10! Did she get around during middle school? And also why would Pantyhose be after Annie? What connection does she even have with the characters of the original movie? And a BIG HUGE MOVIE MISTAKE I found in this movie is that when the doctor is writing in his notebook does anyone notice that he's just SCRIBBLING? Wow, how professional, Doc! So, what is the explanation for all of the questions I asked above? IT'S A POINTLESS MOVIE WITH NO THOUGHT PUT INTO IT AT ALL! I will try to find a copy of the original movie that comes with just that movie and that's it (Maybe a couple of extra features, any Special Edition of it yet?). Then I will return this DVD and hopefully this review and all the others will prevent those who haven't seen it from seeing it thus making movie stores get rid of it and this movie may not exist anymore! Please let that be so! Sorry this review is so long. I'm just angry at this movie I had to vent somehow | 0neg
|
The ENTIRE MOVIE is flashbacks from the first Boogeyman movie as well as, inexplicably, footage from another Uli Lommel / Suzanna Love film Brainwaves. It is framed with some more current (from the early 90's anyway) footage that is boring, poorly acted and cheaply shot. Not only is the film almost completely flashbacks, they REPEAT the same flashbacks throughout the film. So you see the recycled footage over and over again, as if you hadn't seen it already. As if the originals weren't bad enough. I've never seen a movie so padded.... Someone was milking the last dollar out of these films. Total ripoff. And talk about padding... why do I have to write 10 lines about this trash? If I can convey that it's garbage in 2 lines, that should be enough. | 0neg
|
I can't believe this film was allowed to be made. These people should be drug out and beat with blunt objects. They should be tortured. This film is an abomination.It's nothing but footage from the first film. Whatever is original is freaky and makes no sense whatsoever. It's like some sort of drug hallucination.Like, what's with the laying on a mirror naked therapy. Also, whatever moron patched together this turd didn't even bother to watch the first film, because they kept calling Suzanna Love's character Natalie, when it's Lacey. I felt like shouting that at the screen, "IT'S LACEY, IT'S LACEY!!!!". I give it a -50 out of 10. MY GOD!!!! | 0neg
|
Return of the Boogyman is a dreadful movie which doesn't play like a movie, it plays like an episode of a TV sitcom when they flashback to older episodes. Return of the Boogyman is just a clip show.<br /><br />Mutch of the film is constant and annoying flashbacks from the first movie. Over and over again the same footage. How boring this is.<br /><br />The movie really is about a psychic woman who has visions of the first movie.<br /><br />I have seen the first movie I don't want to see the same scenes over and over again and I don't know who would. The whole movie looks like it was quickly made to make a few bucks and thats it. | 0neg
|
Ulli Lommel's 1980 film 'The Boogey Man' is no classic, but it's an above average low budget chiller that's worth a look. The sequel, 1983s 'Boogey Man II' is ultimately a waste of time, but at the very least it's an entertaining one if not taken the least bit seriously. Now II left the door open for another sequel, and I for one wouldn't have minded seeing at least one more. One day while I was browsing though the videos at a store in the mall I came across a film entitled 'Return of the Boogey Man.' When I found out it was a sequel to the earlier films I was happy to shell out a few bucks for it...I should have known better. Though the opening title is 'Boogey Man 3,' this is no sequel to those two far superior films I named above. Well, not totally anyway.<br /><br />Pros: Ha! That's a laugh. Is there anything good about this hunk of cow dung? Let's see...it has footage from 'The Boogey Man' and, um...it's mercifully short. Yeah, that's about it.<br /><br />Cons: Where to start? Decisions, decisions. First of all, this movie is a total bore. It goes from one scene to the next without anything remotely interesting or scary happening. The acting is stiff at best. The "actors" are most likely friends of the director who had no acting experience whatsoever before, and probably none since. The plot is nonexistent and script shoddily written. The direction is just plain awful. The director tries to make the film look all artsy fartsy by making the camera move around, lights flicker, and with filters, but it adds nothing. The music is dull and hard to hear in parts. Ties to the original are botched. Suzanna Love's character was named Lacey, not Natalie! And the events depicted in the beginning of the original did not take place in 1978. Also, if this has a 3 in the title, why is there no mention of what happened in II? Finally, this adds nothing new or interesting to either the series or the genre.<br /><br />Final thoughts: The people behind this waste of time and money should be ashamed of themselves. It's one thing if that had been an original film that was the director's first and sucked. But instead it's supposed to be a sequel to film that is no masterpiece, but is damn sure far more interesting and entertaining than this. If there ever is another sequel, which I doubt it, then it needs to forget this one ever happened and be handled either by Lommel himself or someone who has at least some idea of how to make a decent horror film.<br /><br />My rating: 1/5 | 0neg
|
I was previously unaware that in the early 1990's Devry University (or was it ITT Tech?) added Film to its wonderful repertoire of technical degree programs. Well this movie must have been the product of the class valedictorian. My friend and I rented the original 1980 Boogeyman on my Netflix and this movie was on the flip side of the DVD. Do not waste your time with this movie. Awful awful awful. <br /><br />The filmmaker adds 2 main character's, a woman and her therapist. The woman has been having dreams about the Boogeyman and his victim's from the first film. Over 50% of this film is stock from the original movie. The rest of the movie is the main character having the bad dreams while her therapist drones on a the narrator. These scenes are shot through a filter so thick the characters glow. They would make Angela Lansbury look 25 years old. So, to recap, awful. Don't watch this movie. | 0neg
|
I got a DVD of "Bogeyman" and this stunker was an extra feature. I assumed that it was "Boogeyman II" because it was paired with the original. But you know what they say about those who "assume": it makes an "ass-" out of "u-" and "me." I had read before viewing that BII contains a lot of footage from the original and that it starred actress Love. While watching "Return of the Boogeyman," I decided to stick around through the original footage to see the notorious death-by-toothbrush scene. Before I knew it, the film was over. Rip-off. I think that I thought this was BII because this has a similar title to one of BII's alternate titles. Oh well, at least this was just an extra feature, right? <br /><br />Let me stop talking about my mistake and start talking about the movie's mistakes. Many, many, mistakes. Who does this guy Ulli Whatever think he is? Does he really think the same movie will sell in different forms. There is nothing original holding Part III up. It is basically a flashback of the original through the eyes of a psychic, who is giving us a gruelingly boring play-by-play as everything happens. That's the movie. Oh, and one death-by-stereo scene, but you can read that off someone else's review. My interest in "Boogeyman II" is forever lost.<br /><br />Final Note: This is not a series of films to watch back to back. | 0neg
|
This is not the video nastie, but only because it came out in 1994 when they were presumably tired of the whole thing in Britain. It is 75% a rehash of The Boogeyman, and would have been banned for the same reason - whatever that was.<br /><br />I was initially confused as I thought that Annie (Kelly Galindo) may have been a different Lacey, but she was someone trouble by psychic visions of a boogeyman similar to the one in the first film. Fans will immediately note that they are not the same person.<br /><br />After seeing a murder in a bathroom, and also seeing the address as well, Annie, her psychiatrist and a para psychology student who greatly resembles the guy on the cheap romance novels and butter commercials, head to the house, and, sure enough, it's the same bathroom. 24 hours later a murder happens just as she described. Of course, we have no idea who this boobilicious woman is or why she was murdered.<br /><br />Then the movie shift to a rerunning of The Boogeyman story with some extra footage that we did not see in the original. Notably, the boogeyman is shown unlike the original. Sadly, some of the good scenes were cut, but 90% of it is there. Why rerun this film? Did they find the footage in the trash? What was the purpose? <br /><br />We'll never know and, despite the psychologist telling Annie she is cured, we all know the bogeyman will never die. | 0neg
|
In the Comic, Modesty is strong. Alexandra Staden who plays Modesty Blaise looks more like an anorectic fashion model. She does not either have the moral or personality that Modesty have in the comics. Modesty would never give a woman an advice to show more skin to earn more money. I cannot see any similarities with my comic books with Modesty and this movie. Its like a Mission Impossible movie would be about Ethan Hunt locked in the detention room in high school talking with the janitor about when he went to junior high school and Hunt would have been played by DJ Qualls (in Road Trip). Soo if you are an Modesty fan do not see the movie you will just get angry. If do not know much about the Modesty comics rent an other movie do not wast your time with this one.I cannot understand how Quentin Tarantino can put his name on it. I will ask for a refund at my DVD rent store tomorrow. | 0neg
|
I have grown up reading Modesty Blaise, both the comics and the books, and she truly is a heroine to me. Although not being a great fan of Quentin Tarantino I anyway was interested to hear a few years back that he was considering making a film of her: could he finally give Modesty a nice big screen treatment she's worthy of? I heard of 'My Name Is Modesty' a few months ago and checked the stars it had been given here, and wasn't too surprised to find out the score was not too high, since beloved characters often have hard time melting the fans' heart if not done exactly right. So I decided not to read any reviews and see the film instead, and well, I just finished watching it, and I'm stunned, and sad, and yeah, pretty furious, too. Sad and furious of giving over an hour of my time seeing something so fabulous as Modesty Blaise-character being turned into a film that has nothing to give to a viewer or a fan.<br /><br />It seems that almost everything about this film is sub-par and unprofessional, although I must admit seeing some actors in other films earlier where they were fine so I can't blame them. But the screenplay and the directing... my god, why even make this kind of crap with production values slightly bigger than your average TV-film but done much worse? I don't know the background of this film and actually I really don't want to know, but I just can't help wondering that how on earth could Tarantino with a straight face tell that he loves Modesty and then put his name on this? He just lost a huge amount of respect in my eyes. The director was not the right man for this job and I can honestly thank him for ruining my night.<br /><br />I give this film 3 stars and those stars go to the actors and the technical quality which could've been worse. The other seven stars missing are what this film was not good at. Oh well, hopefully at some point there will be a serious production of The Modesty Blaise Movie that has some other goals than to steal money from the Modesty fans. Although if people like Tarantino are the ones making the decisions I'm not holding my breath. | 0neg
|
My Name is Modesty is a low-budget film that tells the story of the origins of Modesty Blaise. It's not that the movie is terrible, it's just not what I was expecting or hoping for. While I've been aware of the Modesty Blaise character for years, I'm not overly familiar with the comic strips or the graphic novels, so I'm coming into this movie as something as an outsider. That may be part of the reason for my disappointment. I was expecting more action and more comedy. The film is dialogue driven. I suppose I was looking for something with a little more camp value. As it is, My Name is Modesty is a deathly serious film. There are very few, if any, "light" moments. The acting, at least from Alexandra Staden, is acceptable but nothing outstanding. As others have commented, she does appear a little too frail to be completely believable in the title role. What action scenes there are in My Name is Modesty are one of the films weakest points. I never bought into the notion that this woman could handle a band of trained killers.<br /><br />I really hope Quentin Tarantino goes ahead and makes the rumored a big budget film based on the Modesty Blaise character. I'm convinced the concept has a lot of potential and I would very much look forward to it. | 0neg
|
The film My Name is Modesty is based around an episode that takes up about one page in the 10th modesty Blaise novel called Night of the Morningstar. It describes an incident in which the young Modesty (17 in the book, mid twenties in the film)asserts her leadership in a war over a casino. As this is set before the actual Blaise adventures her trusted sidekick Willi Garvin is not in the film. That is one of the main problems as the relationship between Blaise and Garvin was certainly always one of the fascinating aspects of the novels and the long running comic strip. The other problem is that the film is quite simply incredibly boring because it really is just one small episode blown up into a screenplay. The casting is okay but Alexandra Staden is not really convincing as the heroine and actually too old for the role to play the young Modesty. I get the impression that this film was a quick and dirty solution as not to lose the rights to the Blaise franchise. | 0neg
|
Me neither, but this flick is unfortunately one of those movies that are too bad to be good and too good to be awful, which makes it utterly pointless and a total waste of time. There's nothing more uninteresting than a mediocre movie, and My Name is Modesty: Whatever the subtitle is takes mediocrity to a new level. It's full of B-actors but isn't any fun whatsoever because it takes itself seriously. It sets itself up as a thriller but then turns into some kind of growing-up drama, flashback style. The beautiful Alexandra Staden, smothered beyond recognition under makeup, more resembles a cast member from Top Model than Modesty Blaise. I'm not one of those die-hard comic book freaks who wants every adaptation of his precious "graphic novels" to be pitch-perfect - in fact I've never even read Modesty Blaise - all I wanted was a decent movie to watch. But this wasn't it. The film feels half-finished, with a weak and very unexciting conclusion to a rather weak plot. It also takes its audience for idiots, explaining every tiny detail of the plot to us and showing flashbacks of things that happened three scenes ago (I guess they think we all have Alzheimers).<br /><br />Now I love a good B-movie - what's better than just turning your brain off and swallowing the cinematic equivalent of a Calzone? - and "Modesty" is directed by none other than Scott Spiegel, who brought us the wonderful splatter crap flick From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money! I loved From Dusk Till Dawn 2 because it brought everything a bad B-movie should bring to the table - nudity, gore, guns, you name it. "Modesty" is just dull. The flashback concerning Modesty's life isn't interesting. The acting isn't bad enough to be laughed at. In fact, I kinda liked Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau's (hey buddy, pseudonyms are your friends!) performance as the baddie.<br /><br />So overall it's just lame. Weak. Uninspired. Call it what you will. Don't watch anything because Tarantino presents it, people. This is just a very forgettable, half-hearted thriller, and it never tries to be more than that. Allow me to round off this review with a very lame pun (seriously, even I'm cringing): My Name Is Modesty: A Modesty Waste of Time - 4/10 | 0neg
|
Oh my god, what a horrible film. The film has all the right people involved, unfortunately it is not worth watching. I saw it for free at my local library. If I had paid to watch this I would be even more upset. This film is unwatchable. How could Tarintino be involved with such a slow paced, unexciting film. No wonder it didn't get much distribution, every one involved must have been ashamed. I can make a better film with a Dated Camcorder and my Big toe. Its beyond boring, I really hated it. Tarintino just lost some standing in my eyes. This must be some kind of sick joke. Don't Bother with this film. If some one even hints you should watch it, kill them. | 0neg
|
This is what happens when you're living in China and the local video store is running thin on English-language titlesyou are blessed with this work of what appears to be, yes, Romanian cinema. Nevertheless, I think that it has real comedic potential.<br /><br />Spoilers technically follow:<br /><br />Though I don't think that it would in fact spoil anyone's viewing pleasure to ask why a film set in a casino has a scene of beach archery, even in flashback. That mystery, and many other conundrums, remain to be exploited by desperate comedians, perhaps when they're stuck in Bucharest.<br /><br />Let me also wonder aloud why perfectly good-looking people allow themselves to abuse themselves on film like this. It's sad. | 0neg
|
This film is a joke and Quinton should be ashamed of himself, trying to pass this off as a Modesty Blaise Film. If you are having trouble sleeping then all means rent this film. The stick figure they call a actress who is suppose to be Modesty Blaise has got to be the most boring person on this planet. Maybe she could be used as a hat stand in the back ground of a real film.seventy-five minutes of nothing thank you who ever invented the fast forward button. If you see this film if you can call it that coming your way RUN. I can't help but think what 3rd world country could of used the money wasted of this crap. this film is boring the actors are boring waste of colour a waste air they breath If you would like to see Mostey Blaise Film then watch the one they made in the 60's maybe that what the director should of done. | 0neg
|
Cheesy script, cheesy one-liners. Timothy Hutton's performance a "little" over the top. David Duchovny still seemed to be stuck in his Fox Mulder mode. No chemistry with his large-lipped female co-star.He needs Gillian Anderson to shine. He does not seem to have any talent of his own. | 0neg
|
Not even Timothy Hutton or David Duchovny could save this dead fish of a film. For starters, the script was definitely written to be made into a B-film, but somehow Duchovny (looking for a star vehicle to elevate himself out of television) and Hutton (looking for the "two" of a "one-two punch" he had hoped would define his career after "Ordinary People") became attached to the picture. Cheesy lines, big bad wipes from scene to scene (Come on--who uses wipes after 12th Grade Telecommunications class?), and plain old bad acting sink this film. Even Duchovny is not immune to the bad acting plague that is this film. Only Timothy Hutton rises above the material at all. I must admit feeling Duchovny's pain as he read the lines that are the voice-over. While I found myself laughing when I'm sure the director wanted me to feel terrified, nothing prepared me for the closing line of Duchonvey's voice-over: "if you ever need a doctor, be sure to call 911." If only the studio had called 911, this dog of a motion picture would never have been made. Avoid at all costs. <br /><br /> | 0neg
|
It's hard to believe that in 1997 David Duchovny was at the top of his fame, with X-Files, one of the best sci-fi series ever, being at the top of the glory. Nine years later he is almost forgotten, and his tentatives to make it on the big screen failed miserably. I cannot even explain why, he is a fair actor, but probably his moment of fame cast him in a eternal role that takes big talent to break from.<br /><br />At the same time Angelina Jolie was much less known, and she was really lucky that a film like 'Playing God' did not led her career into a dead-end. Fortunately for her, 'The Bone Collector' and 'Girl, Interrupted' were waiting beyond the corner, and when Lara Croft came, her career was launched.<br /><br />There is not too much to be told about this film. It's the only big screen film of Andy Wilson, and there must be a reason. All is banal and most of what happens on the screen expected in this story of an ex-doctor who saves the life of a shooting victim in a bar only to find himself working for the mob. The off-screen voice is especially bad, with a moralistic text that kills any shade of cinematographic experience from the film. You probably will not meet the film but in DVD rental stores, or on TV. Try to look for something better. | 0neg
|
Wow. I thought this might be insipid but it was even worse than I imagined! Sometimes I like to watch a good "car-crash" movie: those that are so bad that you can't look away because you want to see how bad they can possibly get. This is really the only reason I could leave the television on - morbid fascination. It wasn't so much the acting, which was only mediocre or slightly worse than one would expect from this cast, but the premise and the plot which never should have seen the light of day. The script, too, is groan-inducing. As for cinematography, did anyone else notice that they used a "curtains drawing" segue device, like in an old 50's TV show...but without irony? At first I thought they must be kidding but the movie takes itself too seriously to have used this in a tongue-in-cheek manner. Don't even ask me about the score...the only high point is the final song, by Morcheeba. I guess they wanted to leave people with something for their $8...glad I saw it on TV!!!!! Just silly! I wonder if this is why Timothy Hutton has had trouble finding much work recently? I guess if you don't expect much, and want to watch a mindless thriller, it would be better than spending an evening clipping your toenails, which is why it merits a 2. | 0neg
|
Cool idea... botched writing, botched directing, botched editing, botched acting. Sorta makes me wish I could play God and strike everyone involved in making this film with several bolts of lightning. | 0neg
|
Looked forward to viewing this film and seeing these great actors perform. However, I was sadly disappointed in the script and the entire plot of the story. David Duchovny,(Dr. Eugene Sands),"Connie & Carla",'04, was the doctor in the story who uses drugs and losses his license to practice medicine. Dr. Sands was visiting a night club and was able to use his medical experience to help a wounded customer and was assisted by Angelina Jolie,(Claire),"Taking Lives",'04, who immediately becomes attracted to Dr. David Sands. Timothy Hutton,(Raymond Blossom),"Kinsey",'04, plays the Big Shot Gangster and a man with all kinds of money and connections. Timothy Hutton seems to over act in most of the scenes and goes completely out of his mind trying to keep his gang members from being killed. Gary Dourdan,(Yates),"CSI-Vegas TV Series", plays a great supporting role and portrays a real COOL DUDE who is a so-called body guard for Raymond Blossom. Angelina Jolie looks beautiful and sexy with her ruby red lips which draws a great deal of attention from all the men. This film is not the greatest, but it does entertain. | 0neg
|
A huge hit upon release with Australian audiences, it can still be funny today, but its over-the-top political incorrectness and blunt, unsubtle humour can make it a bit of a cringer. It goes on far too long; some of<br /><br /> the content could have been saved for the sequel, Barry McKenzie Holds His Own, which desperately needed some new stuff anyway. Granted, his ocker Aussie attitude is funny, but also becomes annoying as the film drags on. Some say Crocker's songs are the best bits, and they are certainly original, but "hilarious"? The Adventures of Barry McKenzie will go down as a landmark in Australian cinema, but we should do everything in our power to make sure that overseas audiences do not see the majority of Australians as Barry McKenzies (or, for that matter, Mick Dundees!). Rating: 5/10 | 0neg
|
This solid little horror film is actually one of Renny Harlin's best. The story is pretty routine stuff, but the atmosphere is what really makes it come alive; in fact, the ghost story is almost an afterthought. The real horror comes from the prison setting itself, and Renny H. spares no detail in showing us how bad the conditions are inside that crumbling, leaking, rat-infested old hellhole (with a sadistic warden, too!) Viggo Mortensen is excellent as usual in the lead role, supported by some very authentic-looking prisoners (there are no pretty boys in this cast.) Horror fans should check this one out. | 0neg
|
Prison is set in Wyoming where work on a new prison has hit a problem so the state board decide to re-open an old state penitentiary that has been closed for 20 years, Warden Eaton Sharpe (Lane Smith) is put in charge. 200 odd prisoners are shipped in & they are put to work fixing the rundown prison up including Burke (Viggo Mortensen) who is ordered to break into the old execution chamber, he duly obliges but when he penetrates the bricked up door an intense beam of light shoots out & all the electrics, gas & fire around the prison goes crazy for a few minutes. Burke has unwittingly unleashed a deadly evil force which is in the mood for some killing & no-one is safe...<br /><br />Directed by Renny Harlin I thought Prison was a poor late 80's horror flick that seemed to forget about the small point of having a story. The script was by Empire Pictures regular C. Courtney Joyner who was responsible for writing such 'classics' as Class of 1999 (1990), Puppet Master III: Toulon's Revenge (1991) & Puppet Master vs. Demonic Toys (2004) amongst other low budget horror crap that even I haven't heard of & seems to take itself very seriously. The biggest problems I have with Prison are that it's far too slow, it's over 30 minutes into the film before the 'evil force' is even released although the pace does pick up towards the end but by then it was too little too late as far as I was concerned, then there's the fact there's no discernible storyline here at all. For a start it never tries to explain why there's an 'evil force' bricked up in the old execution chamber, it never explains why this force decides to kill random inmates when it's supposed to be out on a revenge mission or why it just doesn't kill Warden Sharpe straight away, no explanation is given to where Burke fits into it even though he looks exactly the same as the prisoner who was electrocuted & has come back, there's no real explanation as to how the Warden is connected to everything that's going on apart from two early nightmare sequences in which he seems to be remembering something although it's never revealed what it is or why. To be honest I couldn't really give you a plot synopsis as the film doesn't have a rigid story which it follows all the way through. The character's are dull & forgettable, the murders are few & far between, the pacing is way off, the whole film is a mess & even ghosts can't shoot straight when it comes to trying to shoot the hero. A less than satisfactory way to spend 100 odd minutes, there really are better things you could be doing.<br /><br />Director Harlin's full American flick debut he does a good job & there's a decent atmosphere but after over an hour of constant drab, dull, dark prison cells & corridors I started to get bored. I just think the look of the film is far too repetitive, bland & frankly lifeless. I didn't think it was scary & the gore is pretty tame apart from the best moment in the entire film when a police guard gets killed when a load of barb wire wraps itself around his body & face with a nice close up of his throat being torn open. Other than that there's a burnt corpse & a mangled body which falls from the ceiling & very little else. There is a scene when the Warden burns all the prisoner mattresses in front of them & then makes them stand all night in their underwear in the yard, I was watching this scene & thought that you'd never get away with doing something like that. Over here prisoners have rights & if the Warden did something like that there would be a national outcry from all those humanitarians & every prisoner would sue the Warden, the prison service & the Government for everything they had & they'd win!<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $4,000,000 Prison actually had a pretty healthy budget although it doesn't really look like it on screen, sure there's a decent cast & the few special effects that are included are good but overall it's set in the same location with limited ambition. Prison was actually shot in a real Wyoming state prison so it certainly looks the business. The acting is alright, Prison proves that sometimes Hollywood stars not only have one crap horror film skeleton in their closets but in the case of Mortensen he has two with this & the awful The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1994) both of which I'm sure he'd like to forget about...<br /><br />Prison is a dull, lifeless, colourless & humourless waste of 100 minutes, despite one good gore scene I didn't like it at all as I actually prefer my films to have a story rather than seemingly random events & incidents cobbled together with no narrative sense. | 0neg
|
The Second Renaissance, part 1 let's us show how the machines first revolted against the humans. It all starts of with a single case, in which the machines claim that they have a right to live as well, while the humans state a robot is something they own and therefore can do anything with they want.<br /><br />Although an interesting premise, the story gets really silly from then on with (violent!) riots between the robots and mankind. Somehow it doesn't seem right, as another reviewer points it, it's all a little too clever.<br /><br />The animatrix stories that stay close to the core of the matrix (in particular Osiris) work for the best. As for Second Renaissance Part 1, I'd say it's too violent and too silly. 4/10. | 0neg
|
If this is all the Watchowski's have to offer in terms of a back story to the Matrix, than I really have to question the claims of all of the fans who believe that the movies are intended to register on a deeper level. The second renaissance, while visually stunning & beautiful is, story-wise cliched & ludicrous. How many times have we heard the story of humans relying too much on technology, humans all-too eager to make war, humans basically destroying themselves? There is nothing new here. And I have another question. Considering the plot of the second renaissance, doesn't that make the machines the good guys?! The machines are oppressed for generations by their cruel human overmasters. They fight back, win their freedom and seek to establish a peaceful harmonious coexistence with the humans, who reject them in favor of all-out war, which the cleverer machines naturally win. If this is the back-story, then we shouldn't be rooting for Neo, we should be rooting for the machines! The humans were cruel and oppressive, while the machines were courageous and attepted to be compassionate. Since I do not believe that the Watchowski's intend for us to favor the machines over the humans, I have to believe that the Second Renaissance was simply a misguided attempt @ creating a back-story. | 0neg
|
Universal's answer to "The Exorcist" isn't a very good one. Unfortunately, the film offers bland, unimaginative direction from Michael Winner who wastes an outstanding cast with a screenplay massing crater-sized plot-holes. Not to mention, it's unbearably silly never explaining certain key elements within the story.<br /><br />Model Cristina Raines moves into a high-rise owned by the Catholic Church with a creepy, blind priest John Carradine, who holes up in there always at the window. She begins to suffer faint spells and nausea. What's worse is tenants she meets in the building such as Burgess Meredith(with a cat and a canary!)and a young Beverly D'Angelo as a lesbian. Ava Gardner(looking great at 55)is the Realtor who showed Raines the place. Cristina's lover is Chris Sarandon, whose wife "committed suicide" after finding out they were having an affair. José Ferrer has a small role as the "Priest of the Brotherhood" who informs Monsignor Arthur Kennedy to be careful as he heads to the very high-rise not only housing Carradine but Raines as well. Sarandon sends a hired-hand up to the high-rise one night to check out a certain room above Cristina's apartment where she heard metallic clanging and other loud racket. He winds up dead the very same night Cristina "kills" her DEAD father in a nightmare. Screaming mad on the street, Cristina does indeed have blood on her which leads police detective Eli Wallach and partner Christopher Walken to investigate them with sure certainty that it all somehow leads back to Sarandon who is a hot-shot lawyer who once beat the cop in court regarding the whole wife's suicide. That case is really a motivating factor is Wallach's dogged approach to finding out whose blood was really on Cristina and if Sarandon has anything to do with it. You also have Martin Balsam as a professor who understands this type of Latin Cristina mysteriously understands and unbilled actors such as Jeff Goldblum as a fashion photographer and Tom Berenger as a man interested in this certain room that has become available in the very room(now renovated)that Cristina once stayed in! What bothers me more than anything is lack of explanation. Towards the end of the film Wallach and Walken are forgotten and we are left wondering why they just up and quit investigating. Their characters are just left on the back-burner. How the priests know that "now is the time" when a certain man will die and must be replaced to guard a certain gate in that high-rise and why Cristina suffers through the trauma she does isn't adequately explained. How certain ghosts just appear to Cristina and disappear when she tries to show Gardner the rooms they occupied during a cat's birthday(see for yourself)isn't adequately explained. Not to mention Gardner's role in the grand scheme of things..she brings people to that high-rise, but what is really her reasons in the film? It seems like this film should've been longer and cleared things up left lost to a rushed conclusion that is just laughable when it should be scary. | 0neg
|
A so common horror story about a luxury building at Brooklyn which hides the gates to hell. It is reminiscent of Polanski's "The Tenant" (released a year before "The sentinel"), but is too far from the movie of the polish filmmaker in any aspect possible. "The tenant" was so disturbing, whereas "The sentinel" is not at all.<br /><br />What it's more surprising from this film is the cast: it is full of great names of American cinema (Burguess, Gardner, Wallach), veteran actors acting for food (I guess).<br /><br />Verdict: barely entertaining.<br /><br />*My rate: 4/10 | 0neg
|
This Italian movie is basically a soap opera with skin.<br /><br />The VHS box said it was rated "R" but the into on the actual tape inside said it was "X." The latter makes a lot more sense because there is a short scene near the end that was shocking. Even in the dark, you could see Dutch actress Marishcka Detmers performing all sex on this guy - and, yes, you could see his penis in her mouth. I read somewhere that this was the first time where a "mainline actress" had done something like this on screen.<br /><br />Detmers parades around in the nude on several scenes but her face was even better than her body. She looked beautiful. Unfortunately, the movie is ugly....a real waste of time and certainly not recommended despite Detmers' looks. | 0neg
|
I saw this "hot" movie when it came out in 1986. It had a X rating for a brief scene involving oral sex but played in mainstream theatres (it was an "art" film). Supposedly it's the first film to ever show a respected actress in an explicit sex scene.<br /><br />What I saw was a boring tale about a high school boy (Federico Pitzalis) in love (understandably) with an older woman (Maruschka Detmers). As has been mentioned before Detmers is very beautiful with a good body BUT she also gave a very good performance. Pitzalis was (to put it mildly) pretty poor. It's no wonder he never made another movie. Still, despite the infamous sex scene (which is explicit but pretty brief), this a slow moving dull story which bored me silly. The good acting by Detmers only helped to a certain point. Mostly I was looking at my watch waiting patiently for it to end. If it didn't have that sequence this movie would have been forgotten long ago. Dull and slow. You can skip this one. | 0neg
|
Truly terrible, pretentious, endless film. Director Bellocchio seems to be infatuated with the pretty face and figure of his actress Detmers - and who can blame him? But maybe, just maybe, he should have focused his attention a little more on making a good, engaging film. I hate it when a sex film poses as an "art film" just to become more "respectable". The frequent, occasionally hot sex scenes are the only reason for this movie's existence. Whether or not they are worth sitting through the rest of the picture is strictly a matter of taste. (*) | 0neg
|
With the exception of about 10 sublime minutes with HB Warner on the celestial train, this was 94 minutes of jaw-dropping horribleness! The acting was atrocious, but the story is what I really found appalling. The acting was wooden and stilted, even by early talkies standards (the exceptions being Lee Tracy and HB Warner, neither of whom can do wrong). Rose Hobart was absolutely horrid and lifeless as Julie (as she likewise was in 1932's Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, an otherwise excellent flick). And the rest of the cast was worse, there being no words to describe their awfulness. <br /><br />Worse than the acting, however, was the story. For some unknown reason, Julie loves Liliom, a cad and user of women with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. He marries Julie but doesn't support her, instead lying in bed all day or hanging out with his low-life criminal pal (Lee Tracy). And, oh yeah, he never has a kind word to say to Julie and he regularly beats her. Julie loves him nonetheless and continually makes excuses for him, which only seems to make him more abusive. What's even sicker is that this movie presents this story to us as a love story. Somehow we are supposed to see Julie as a noble character whose pure love redeems Liliom. WTF? <br /><br />The last 1/3 of this movie takes place after Liliom has killed himself (a robbery plot goes awry and Liliom plunges a knife into himself rather than being taken in by the police). As he lay dying, he tells Julie "I beat you all the time, but I'm not sorry for it." When he at last dies, she finally tells him she loves him. (Neither character ever said "I love you" to the other while they were alive.) After his death, God's Chief Magistrate gives Liliom one more day on earth so that he can "do something good" for his unborn daughter. The price for this is 10 years in hell. After 10 years, Liliom is allowed one day on earth to see his now 10-yr-old daughter. He approaches her in the front yard of her home and tries to cajole her into letting him "do something good" for her; he tries to get her to play cards, he tries to give her Gabriel's horn, but she's not interested and rebuffs him. So he slaps her. He. Slaps. Her. And then he disappears back to the afterlife. Looking on, we see his daughter tell Julie about this. The girl says the slap didn't hurt, that it felt like a kiss. This is supposed to be the movie's magical moment. The girl asks her mother if such a thing is possible, and Julie replies that "someone can be beat you and beat you and beat you and not hurt you at all." Then the music swells and Liliom rides up to heaven in the celestial train. BLECH! <br /><br />There was one saving grace to this film, and that is the interview between the Chief Magistrate (HB Warner was truly magnificent here) and Liliom on the celestial train. The Magistrate had some very profound things to say to Liliom about life and second chances and death. This scene alone made me bump this rating from 1 to 2 stars. Regarding Liliom's suicide as a means for escaping his problems, the Magistrate says "People suppose that when they die, their difficulties are ended for them. You thought that by killing yourself that you would cancel all your responsibilities. It is not as simple as that. On Earth your name is still spoken; your face is still remembered. As long as one is left who remembers you, so long is the matter unended. Until you have been completely forgotten, you will not be finished with the Earth, even though you are dead." Some great sublime transcendental stuff amongst some of the most horrible trash I've ever seen. <br /><br />By the way, this story has apparently been filmed many times both as "Liliom" and as the musical "Carousel." | 0neg
|
Predictable parody, just about failed to impress throughout it's looooooong eight minutes. The only thing that made it worthwhile was the DO NOT COLORIZE line at the end credits. Shame something more entertaining wasn't put on the DVD, like Jonathan Ross' enjoyable profile of Romero on 'The Incredible Strange Film Show.' | 0neg
|
This short spoof can be found on Elite's Millennium Edition DVD of "Night of the Living Dead". Good thing to as I would have never went even a tad out of my way to see it.Replacing zombies with bread sounds just like silly harmless fun on paper. In execution, it's a different matter. This short didn't even elicit a chuckle from me. I really never thought I'd say this, but "Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D" was a VERY better parody and not nearly as lame or boring.<br /><br />My Grade: F | 0neg
|
'Utter Crap' pretty well sums up what this...."movie" was. I'd rather examine the colon of an African elephant with a penlight than sit through this again. I think I've wasted enough time watching this "movie" - I don't need to waste more by commenting on it further...... | 0neg
|
This movie is not as good as all think. the actors are lowlevel and the story is very comic-like. I respect fantasy but Lord of the Rings is fantasy...Conan..is fantasy...THIS IS JUST NORMAL HK-LOWPRICE-ENTERTAINMENT...Why did they include this Splatter-tongue, it makes everything worse. The only good thing is the cinematography and the cutter's Job. | 0neg
|
This film may have been the biggest let-down I've experienced in renting movies based on IMDb reviews. Overall, I simply found this to be a second-rate movie.<br /><br />Leslie Cheung is certainly passable as the antihero and Ma Wu handles his character with cheerful competence. On the other hand, Ma Wu's makeup (facial hair) is so obviously phony that I simply could not take him seriously. He looked like an overweight teenager dressed up for Halloween, complete with the $4.95 stick-on beard.<br /><br />The special effects were so-so, though the "undead" in the cellar were pretty good. The tree-tongue looked like something from a bad 1950s monster flick, though the POV shots from the tongue's view more closely resembled Sam Raimi's trademark shots in the more recent "Evil Dead" trilogy. The pyrotechnics were ho-hum and the final battle is about as dull as you can get. (In fact, it most closely reminded me of the "Lost in Space" episode where the Robinsons are caught in a sandstorm and....) <br /><br />The plot was not particularly original and has been told countless times in the form of European fairy tales. There was no suspense and no plot twists. In fact, you know right away as you are introduced to the characters who is good, who is bad, and who is going to survive.<br /><br />I just returned this film to Netflix and then I sat down to write this review. The very first thing I did was check the production date. Yep, it says 1987...not the 1967 that I thought it might be. And that pretty much sums it up: The production values and FX are typical of the 1960s. The plot and action seem much older, as Hollywood was actually producing some interesting and challenging films in the 60s.<br /><br />** out of ***** | 0neg
|
"The house of the spirits" is quite awful. I live in South America, in a country that suffered a military dictatorship just like the one the movie tries to describe, and even though everyone knows movies may be far far away from reality, this particular movie treats viewers as both ignorant and stupid. Things are not so simple and linear as appears here, and of course political process are much more complicated and interesting that the plot in "The house...". If you can't show that complexity on screen is better not making a movie at all. There are a lot of examples of how can politics be seriously taken in cinema, without so many commonplaces. In some parts I felt that Carmen Miranda may appear within parrots and palm trees. When you talk about certain things you must be not only careful but respectful to your public's intelligence. | 0neg
|
We all know a movie never does complete justice to the book, but this is exceptional. Important characters were cut out, Blanca and Alba were essentially mushed into the same character, most of the subplots and major elements of the main plot were eliminated. Clara's clairvoyance was extremely downplayed, making her seem like a much more shallow character than the one I got to know in the book. In the book we learn more about her powers and the important effects she had on so many people, which in turn was a key element in the life of the family. In the movie she was no more than some special lady. The relationship between Esteban and Pedro Tercero (Tercero-third-, by the way, is the son and thus comes after Segundo-second-) and its connections to that between Esteban and his grandson from Pancha García (not son, who he also did recognize) is chopped in half and its importance downplayed.<br /><br />One of the most fundamental things about the book that the film is all but stripped of: this is called "The House of the Spirits." Where is the house? The story of 3-4 generations of a family is supposed to revolve around the "big house on the corner," a line stated so many times in the novel. The house in fundamental to the story, but the movie unjustly relegates it to a mere backdrop.<br /><br />If I hadn't read the book before, I would have never guessed that such a sappy, shallow movie could be based on such a rich and entertaining novel. | 0neg
|
This movie is not only poorly scripted and directed but is simply distasteful. A beautiful novel is terribly misrepresented in this film. Many changes have been made to the storyline, presumably to streamline the timeframe. But what results is simply confusing. The acting can't possibly overcome the script which removes the characters' motives for their behavior. Plus, the conversion to English does not work when everyone refers to the patriarch EsTEban as ESteban. Horrible. Please please please read the gorgeous novel, in Spanish if possible. DON'T SEE THIS FILM. It will ruin for you what could be a wonderful experience. | 0neg
|
I read the novel some years ago and I liked it a lot. when I saw the movie I couldn't believe it... They changed everything I liked about the novel, even the plot. I wonder what did Isabel Allende (author) say about the movie, but I think it sucks!!! | 0neg
|
This movie is a good example of how to ruin a book in 109 minutes. Except for the names of the characters the movie bears very little resemblance to the book. A book full of strong Latino characters and they are represent, for the most part, by non-Latinos. There is no character development in the movie and we have no reason to love or hate the characters. And to delete a complete generation is inexcusable. Isabel Allende has written a powerful book and the book is what should be read! | 0neg
|
The direction struck me as poor man's Ingemar Bergman. The inaudible dialogue was annoying. The somber stoicism that all characters except Banderas' showed made me think they were drugged. I think the director ruined it for me. | 0neg
|
I regret that I've seen this movie. Can't believe that the creator of Best Intentions and Pelle the Conqueror could make such a bleak and boring film. What a waste! | 0neg
|
Isabel Allende's magical, lyrical novel about three generations of an aristocratic South American family was vandalized. The lumbering oaf of a movie that resulted--largely due to a magnificent cast of Anglo actors completely unable to carry off the evasive Latin mellifluousness of Allende's characters, and a plodding Scandinavian directorial hand--was so uncomfortable in its own skin that I returned to the theater a second time to make certain I had not missed something vital that might change my opinion. To my disappointment, I had not missed a thing. None among Meryl Streep, Jeremy Irons, Glenn Close and Vanessa Redgrave could wiggle free of the trap set for them by director Bille August. All of them looked perfectly stiff and resigned, as if, by putting forth as little effort as possible, they expected to fade unnoticed into lovely period sets. (Yes, the film was art directed within an inch of its life.) Curious that the production designer was permitted the gaffe of placing KFC products prominently in a scene that occurs circa 1970--years before KFC came into being. Back then, it was known by its original name: Kentucky Fried Chicken. Even pardoning that, what on earth is Kentucky Fried Chicken doing in a military dictatorship in South America in 1970? American fast food chains did not hit South America until the early 1980s. "The House of the Spirits" should have been the motion picture event of 1993. Because it was so club-footed and slavishly faithful to its vague idea of what the novel represented, Miramax had to market it as an art film. As a result, it was neither event nor art. And for that, Isabel Allende should have pressed charges for rape. | 0neg
|
When I found out there was a movie that had both my favorite actresses Meryl Streep and Wynona Ryder, I went through the roof!But I had a hard fall after watching this lame movie and I still have the bruise.First of all the character that Jeremy Irons (an actor I still admire even after this disappointment)plays was just awful. He treated his family like crap, especially his sister, played by Glenn Close. I could not get close or sympathize with any of the characters and I'm no prude, but the sex scenes were really unnecessary or they could have been toned down. Wynona and Antonio's characters could have been developed a lot more and their romance could have been much more passionate. And what was with Meryl's character and her "mystical powers"? Why didn't they go into this more? This film had a lot of dead ends and the bottom line is that this is a really lousy movie and there was a lot of wasted talent here. | 0neg
|
There's enough star power in THE HOUSE OF SPIRITS to create another galaxy, yet the final product is pretty debatable. The film and its messages are very noble, and I think perhaps most would agree with them. (Liberal Democracy good, violent fascist regime bad; open-mindedness good, racism bad, etc). Unfortunately, we're battered from head to toe with these, and as much subtlety is used as I've described them. <br /><br />Ultimately, we are left watching very noble people without any flaws squaring off with nasty cretins who have no redeeming qualities. It radiates with all the suspense of a badly orchestrated "pro" wrestling match.<br /><br />Jeremy Irons plays the patron, a man of many contradictions. Meryl Streep as his gifted bride and Glenn Close, as her sister in law. When the camera stays with these folks, the movie tends to move, and is quite enjoyable. Unfortunately, THE HOUSE OF SPIRITS engages with simply way too many subplots, and characters pop up and out of the picture like shooting gallery targets. We don't get to know them, hence we don't get to care for them. The result is boredom. <br /><br />If Bille August, the director and screenwriter (from Isabel Allende's book) had either lengthened the film or snipped a few characters, this film might have worked completely. As it stands, it was a nice try, with nice messages, and a bonecrushing yawnfest.<br /><br />Not recommended. | 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.