text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
I can't understand why so many peoples praised this show. Twin peaks is one of the most boring titles I have ever seen in my life.<br /><br />Now I have seen all season 1 episodes, and seeing season 2 episode 1. Simply I can't take this show anymore.<br /><br />1) Where is the proper induction in criminal investigation?<br /><br />In season 1, there was a scene that agent Cooper throws stones to a bottle. Can you guess why he did that? He just want to identify murderer by doing this 'joke' while mentioning supernatural ability given by Tibet dream. Wow!!!<br /><br />2) There are too many unnecessary scenes in this show.<br /><br />For example, season 2 started with a 'funny' scene that a dumb old man serves agent Cooper with a cup of milk while Cooper are laying down on the floor.( He got the gun shoots in his belly already. ) This old man is doing nothing but saying some dumb comments. That's all.<br /><br />This scene is really boring and even long ( 3 min 30 sec.... It's like Hell. )<br /><br />I would read some comic books rather than see this show anymore. | 0neg
|
We are not in the fairy tale of the naked emperor. We may confess the truth of what we see, without being stupid, confess, that this show is in many aspects just incomprehensible and that it is clear, that much of it was created out of pure intuition without real concept.<br /><br />Well, obviously many people like such stuff. I don't. I prefer well thought and planed shows. And I also confess, that the show is much to serious for my taste and boring...those love and drug stories...There are so many exciting soaps with lot of suspense (Dallas e.g.), but Twin Peaks can't catch my attention. I don't care about those people, except Cooper and Gordon Cole. | 0neg
|
There is nothing unique in either the TV Series nor the Movie. Which is a prequel to the TV Show, that isn't found everywhere else in life and entertainment. Both before David Lynches disgusting style of story telling, and after. <br /><br />From the Moment the body of a poor misguided girl washed up on the beach. And being introduced to some of the most mind numbing shady immoral character of the Twin Peaks.<br /><br />To the Mind numbing almost pedophilia disgusting way the movie seems to romantically tell of the destruction of a Human Life through some random psychedelic phenomena in the Movie Twin Peak:Fire Come Walk with me. <br /><br />I watched it all just to make sure I wasn't missing anything. I didn't. It's is simply one mans obvious sexual fetish extended over long series fallowed by a ridiculous overly pornographic movie. Save your self the agony the suspense and watch anything else that at least has the ability to tell a story, rather then seduce you into some kind mental porn movie.<br /><br />I have heard a lot of reviews, rants and raves about how great David Lynch. Because of his ability to define misery and and tragedy and making it into some kind of a wonderful thing. This is not life imitating art, as much as it is some sick twisted version of art doing its best to inspire complete mindless life.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and avoid this garbage. | 0neg
|
These kind of movies where a psycho of one variety or another tries to damage the reputation (and eventually eliminate altogether) some naive person in order to take over their life. Fatal Attraction, Pacific Heights, The Hand that Rocks the Cradle, Single White Female, and a thousand made-for-TV movies are some examples of this. But while a few, especially Fatal Attraction and Pacific Heights could offer at least some extremely paranoid, suspenseful characters or a few plot twists, Unlawful Entry plays everything by the book. And were it not for the notoriety of its stars (Kurt Russel, Ray Liota, and Madeline Stowe), this movie would sink to mediocrity faster than a Danielle Steele miniseries.<br /><br />Russel plays Michael Carr, an incessantly naive guy who calls on the help of a pair of officers when someone breaks into his house and tries to attack his wife (Madeline Stowe). Unfortunately, he quietly vents his anger about feeling so helpless in the situation to the wrong cop (Ray Liotta), a typically psychopathic villain with no limits for his power. At first empathizing with Carr (probably only pretending to do so), the cop befriends the couple. But soon enough, the cops wants Carr out of the way so, destroying the guys life nearly any way he can (which is pretty easy when you're a cop, and when you're the cop who has installed the guy's security system in his house) in order to take over and presumably, get his wife. It seems less ends-oriented, and more like the cop just wants to prove his power. The wife is more like a trophy, in other words, than an end. And the story plays out entirely by the book, you can probably predict every occurrence before it happens on the screen if you've seen enough of these movies. From the "shocking" moment our main, naive character realizes he is a victim of credit card fraud (perpetrated by the psychopathic villain) to the turn-around-he's-not-really-dead finale. | 0neg
|
Typical thriller, has been done many times before. Simple plot outline; cop Liotta becomes obsessed with Russell's wife, and he tries to bump off good ol' Kurt so he can have her. This is beyond predictable, it doesn't even try to make you guess, the plot is the plot and there's no thinking outside the box here. I guess then the only reason to watch it is to see how it develops, but nothing is done originally or interestingly. There's not really anything to say about this film, it's not particularly bad, but there's no good points either. Russell plays Russell and you know what you're gonna get when you see him in a film. Ditto Liotta. Stowe has an annoying Cher-esque voice. I read the plot outline and I could see the film in my head, it was so obvious and basic. I watched it and it rolled out in front of my eyes exactly as I had imagined. I felt not a drop of emotion throughout. I have no feeling towards this film, it's as if I never even watched it. Considering this, it's a pretty pointless film isn't it? Still, I'll give it 3/10 for some reason. | 0neg
|
This is another typical unbelievable and non-sensical piece of Hollywood dreck.<br /><br />Kurt Russell, as Snake Pliskin in a business suit, convinces me he was a better 2nd baseman. Ray Liotta as the psychotic cop is totally predictable and absurd. Madeline Stowe is her usual cardboard self, and does little to be a convincing victim.<br /><br />Every scene in this persiflage is absolutely predictable all the way to the end when Kurt clouts Ray with a vase or something, knocking him down and out. Kurt and Madeline then do their obligatory end-of-the-movie embrace, and EVERYBODY--- except Russell and Stowe, KNOWS Liotta is going to get back up and menace the couple again.<br /><br />He does, of course, and Russell drills him 10 times with his 9mm, which was ENTIRELY unnecessary. This movie could just as well ended with the bludgeoning scene--- EXCEPT Hollywood dotes on unnecessary violence, and the more they can add, or "enhance", the more slobbery they get. | 0neg
|
Sometimes a premise starts out good, but because of the demands of having to go overboard to meet the demands of an audience suffering from attention-deficit disorder, it devolves into an incongruous mess. And for three well-respected actors who have made better work before and after, this is a mortal shame.<br /><br />So let's see. Premise: a loving couple who lives in a beautiful home is threatened by a bad cop. Interesting to say the least. Make the encroaching cop a little disturbing, why not. It was well done in THE HAND WHO ROCKS THE CRADLE and SINGLE WHITE FEMALE, and it's a proved ticket to a successful thriller.<br /><br />Now herein lies the dilemma. Create a disturbing story that actually bothers to bring some true menace into its main characters while never going so far as to look ridiculous, or throw any semblance to reality, amp up the shock factor, and make this cop so extreme -- an ultra bad variation of every other super-villain that's hit cinemas since the silent age.<br /><br />The producers, and directors, chose the latter. Thus is the resulting film -- badly made, with actors trying their darnedest to make heads or tails in roles that they've essayed before, and nothing much amounting to even less. | 0neg
|
I remembered this show from when i was a kid. i couldn't remember too much about it, just a few minor things about the characters. for some reason i remembered it being really intense. also it was on really really early in the morning up in PA. I finally, after looking around the web for a long time, found an episode. the first episode no-less. Criminey! This show was so horrible. it was obviously just made to show kids playing lazer tag and having a great time. the show opens with bhodi li telling his mommy "my names not Christopher, I'm bhodi li-PHOTON WARRIOR!!!!!" we then are forced to watch kids playing lazer tag to the song "foot loose". and not just a quick little bit, but the whole song. ahhhhhhhhh my brain hurts just thinking about it. oh yeah, and as if i couldn't get worse, you cant even see the laser beams from their guns. its like they're just running around to the entire "foot loose" song. later on, after bhodi goes up into space or where-ever, they have a crappy laser gun fight to the Phil Collins song "su-su-sudio." ah, trust me, you don't want to know the rest. what can i say......THE LIGHT SHINES!!!!!!!!!!! | 0neg
|
I saw this film at the Rotterdam Festival, as did presumably all the other voters. The Director was present and seemed to have worked very hard and be very committed to the project, which I think explains the above average reception and mark it got. It's most similar to a feature length episode of Aussie kids favourite "Round the Twist" but it takes itself too seriously to have even that redeeming feature. The movie in itself is maybe worth seeing if you're trying to do a cinematic world tour visiting all UN member states, as I can't think of another Fijian movie but overall it was generic, poorly acted (albeit by an amateur cast) and prey to the subaltern mentality. The moral of the story seemed to be that native islanders will try and screw each other over, but as long as there is an essentially decent white governor to step in, all problems can be solved (by leaving the island). | 0neg
|
Certainly NOMAD has some of the best horse riding scenes, swordplay, and scrumptious landscape cinematography you'll likely see, but this isn't what makes a film good. It helps but the story has to shine through on top of these things. And that's where Nomad wanders.<br /><br />The story is stilted, giving it a sense that it was thrown together simply to make a "cool" movie that "looks" great. Not to mention that many of the main characters are not from the region in which this story takes place (and it's blatantly obvious with names like Lee and Hernandez). If movie makers want to engross us in a culture like the Jugars and the Kazaks, they damn well better use actors/actresses that look the part.<br /><br />Warring tribes, a prophecy, brotherly love and respect, a love interest that separates our "heroes", are all touched on but with so little impact and screen time that most viewers will brush them aside in favor of the next battle sequence, the next action horse scene, or the breathtaking beauty of the landscape.<br /><br />It is worth mentioning that there were some significant changes made to Nomad during its filming, specifically the director and cinematographer. Ivan Passer (director) was replaced by Sergei Bodrov, and Ueli Steiger (cinematographer) was replaced by Dan Laustsen. In one respect, Laustsen seems to have the better eye since his visions of the lands made the final cut that we see here. Definitely a good thing. However, the changing over to Bodrov as director may not have been the wisest choice. From what I'm seeing here, the focus is on the battles and not the people, which I sense comes from Bodrov's eyes and not Passer's. A true travesty.<br /><br />The most shameful aspect is that this could've been a really fantastic film, with both character and action focuses. Unfortunately, the higher-ups apparently decided that action was what was needed and took the cheap (intellectually speaking) way out.<br /><br />Even though I can't give this film a positive rating, it is worth watching simply for the amazing cinematography work. But that's all. | 0neg
|
I am a huge fan of warrior movies. Some of my favorites are Braveheart, Troy, The last samurai and Gladiator. And after watching Mongol, which is absolutely awesome, and which i strongly recommend, i had high expectations from a Sergei Bodrov movie. But it was terrible, awful, even pathetic is not a strong word in this case. The whole movie i was waiting for something exciting to happen, but it didn't, then i was at least expecting a big epic battle at the end, but even that was a huge disappointment, just some random running around, waving with the swords... There are so many good warrior movies, this one is not one of them. | 0neg
|
this movie let me down decidedly hard. it was a great concept that was ruined with a horrible script. The story just didn't flow and was disjointed at best. There were so many elements to this story that were not explained, or were forced into place with out any real thought. elements like the love story could have been expanded on a bit more, and the cannons need to be written in better. the whole main character growing up thing needed more about the training he was receiving and less standing around. everyone likes a good "little guy overcomes" story and this showed promise but with the scripting failures wasn't to be. While it did have some pyrotechnics in the final battle sequence it was lackluster due to a lack of choreography. this made for a maddeningly boring watch<br /><br />it could have been so good :( | 0neg
|
Disappointing film. Performance of actors is weak. Sets are fine, could have been better. The story is also weak. Battle sequences are awful. Sounds and quality of film are trashy. The history of Kazakh people was told very poorly. This film should have included more Kazakh actors, in leading roles. And also should have been in Kazakh language. Kuno Bekker and Jay Hernandez are Hispanic origins. I don't get it. Since when Hispanic people play Turkic-Mongolian people. This film is shame of Kazakh cinema. Rustam Ibragimbekov disappointed me. He is one of the finest filmmakers in the world. Czekh director is excused, since he is not nomadic origin, he cannot know true spirit and history of nomads. | 0neg
|
This is simply put, the worst movie I have ever seen. It ranges from like 2+ hours, and the box art was totally misleading. My friends and I rented it because, we thought it would be a poor man's 300. You know, to laugh at and make fun of. No. There is nothing funny about this movie, only pain. Then, the movie starts up, and they are speaking some sort of different language. We think, 'Oh its just the beginning.' But no, from there the movie plummets and becomes more of like a super boring book you had to read in grade school, where nothing literally happens for hours, and the battle scenes rival those of 2 kids fighting on a playground. Omit Cinematography, and this movie belongs in trash compactor. Movies like this will lead to the world we see in Wall-E, which by the way was a good movie. | 0neg
|
Pathetic. This is what happens when director comes to work just because someone is paying him to. <br /><br />The intentions were good, great locations and settings for a film of epic proportions. But the performance, damn! I swear, in some shots you can see extras on the background staring in the camera, or looking at the actors because no one told them what they should do when they hear "Action!". The battle scenes are so bad you wonder - are these people for real? They could've done more damage just by hugging each other. In the slow-mo scenes you can see people on battle field walking around or just standing, waving their hands. <br /><br />Only action in the foreground is somehow emphasized. But for what? The story is so illogical and discontinuous, it seems like random situations in chronological order, sometimes not even that. The dialogs are dumb, the love plot is more embarrassing and ridiculous than in Hong Kong action movies. <br /><br />With a budget of 40 million, and you can see every dollar invested on the screen, in best case scenario, the final result of all this enormous effort is a shiny round laser disk in the thin cover placed on the shelf in video store. | 0neg
|
Yeah, right.<br /><br />I spent the first hour waiting patiently for the movie to take off. It was horribly boring, and consisted mostly of people riding randomly around the hills with no apparent direction. Then the hero comes into the picture. Born as an Asian, but when he grew up, he became white. Obviously white. He wasn't even close to passing for Asian. He looked like Justin Timberlake. It was extremely distracting, and the story did nothing to help the cause. Pointless battle sequences and lame dialogue. It's an hour and forty five minutes long, and by the end I was trying to eat my own face. I watched this because people at the video store where I work are always asking me if this movie is any good. Now I have an answer. It goes something like this: ahem. "NO! GOOD GOD NO! IT'S HORRIBLE! DON'T DO THIS TO YOURSELF! I would recommend another movie, perhaps one that's entertaining." | 0neg
|
I knew nothing of this film before I was convinced to see it by a friend who had heard it was a "non-stop epic battle scene from beginning to end". That couldn't have been further from the truth. This was one of the most boring, poorly written, amateurishly directed, horribly acted films I've ever had the misfortune to lay my eyes upon. I'd rank it up there with the movie I consider to be the worst film of all time... Battlefield Earth. There basically is no story, it's hard to believe that the makers of this film thought that this cheesy soap opera crap would be taken seriously as actual historic fact. It also features some of the worst dialogue I've ever heard... like this little gem... Guy tells girl "You smell like the moon.". Girl replies "What does the moon smell like?" OMG! You have to be kidding me! The scene where the guy was drawn and quartered got some good laughs from the audience since it looked so ridiculously cheap and the sound FX of the guy being ripped apart reminded me of someone making a fart sound with their mouth. If this is playing at a theater near you, avoid it at all costs. This movie is so bad that I actually made the decision about 45 minutes through that I needed to catch up on my sleep... and I did. Awful. | 0neg
|
I would give this movie 5 rather than 3 if it would be at least in time... When i've seen it in first time it was just what you could wait from the work that is based not on the artistic abilities of the directors but on the idealistic or i would rather say idiotic habits of our (Kazakhstan) government... It's a shame, because 'Qazaqfil'm' was been shooting nice movies when it was not honoured by the name of Shaken Aimanov, but it was actually ran by him. The movies like 'Konec Atamana', 'Kyz Zhibek' or even 'Aldar Kose'. But after Mr Aimanov's death the production of quality movies went down almost dramatically in 10 years time there were very few films produced. However, in late 1980s, 'Assa' was shot, it was a film about first organised crime groups in the big country, one year later Mr. Rashid Nugmanov shot another film with the co-staring of the same actor/singer V.Tsoy, at that time he was already a soviet/Russian rock legend, - the movie called 'Igla' (The Needle or something) it was completely new, somebody called that period as resurrection or a new Kazakh movie wave. Unfortunately nowadays we do not have a quality movies, our directors shooting movies on the french and Japanese financial support, and thus movies are not for the public but for the authors professional critics, some of them take a price on international author movie festivals but there a very few of them become a business asset products... And again back to our 'nomads'. Such movies usually unpopular because of vast aspects. The same effects was with Nikita Mikhalkov's 'Sibirski Cyrilnik' about Russian tsars, that was also shot on parities with foreign partners, i think they were french or maybe British. Nobdy liked it, even in Russian public it become as a main topic of a comedians and comedy shows like 'KVN'. IMHO | 0neg
|
"Dracula II:Ascension" is the story of a group of medical students who come across the body of Dracula.When a mysterious stranger appears and offers the students $30 million to harvest the body and steal its blood for auction,it's an offer they can hardly refuse.Soon the students also find themselves relentlessly pursued by a vampire killer from the Vatican!"Dracula II:Ascension" is a slightly entertaining horror film that has many flaws.The characters are one-dimensional and the acting is pretty average.There are some good gore effects like really cool double decapitation scene,but there is not enough violence for my liking.The film becomes quickly boring and forgettable and there is absolutely no suspense.So if you like modern vampire flicks give it a look.I prefer atmospheric vampire chillers from 60's and early 70's like "Lips of Blood","The Brides of Dracula" or "Lemora:A Child's Tale of Supernatural" to name only a few.4 out of 10. | 0neg
|
Ascension is actually a step up in terms of what the original movie was in story and in special effects. Jason Scott Lee Is good as a vampire hunter looking for the count himself (if you remember him, he was from the movie Dragon, The Bruce Lee Story.') Jason London is funny as Luke, the kid who helps the woman he loves from a far steal Dracula's body from the slab. Diane Neal Is good as the woman who steals Dracula's body in order to finds a cure for her dying boyfriend, And Stephen Billington is great as Dracula himself. Giving a better performance than Gerard Butler did the count in the original film. Roy Scheider rounds out the rest of the cast in this movie, and he does a decent job as the mentor of Jason Scott Lee's character. This is the second sequel in the trilogy, and they are off to a good start. It's up in the air whether the last film will close the series out on a good note. | 0neg
|
the movie opens with a beautiful lady in a tattered white gown running through a stereotypical eastern european town. we know she's being followed by something, because she keeps looking behind her. and soon we see she's being chased by a mysterious man in a black trenchcoat. then we realize that the man is actually the vampire hunter and he is after her. but look is that her reflection in the store window??? no its just her identical twin vampire! but unfortunately they both get it.<br /><br />after this brilliant and amazingly fun throwback to the old hammer films of the 60's and 70's (in the credits the twins are listed as the twins of evil, which of course is the name of the final instalment in hammer's karnstein trilogy), the plot pretty much dies.<br /><br />What little plot there is involves dracula (who conveniently changes his appearance each time he is reborn, so the producer doesn't have to rehire the same dracula) coming to a morgue, the med students realizing he's undead and thinking....wow what an opportunity, maybe i'll just disregard all those movies that say that drinking vampire blood turns you into a vampire and use the vampire's blood to find a cure for our jerk friend's ailment. obviously this is a mistake and everyone becomes a vampire.<br /><br />A new concept but pulled off excruciatingly badly. The movie keeps setting up wonderful situations and refuses to do anything with them.<br /><br />For example the med students attempt to bring drac back to life by placing him in a bathtub filled with blood in a secluded run down country mansion. The house itself is scary enough to be the center of the film, but do we stay there? no because they decide to take the vampire to an abandoned swimming pool. sigh. This movie has a real problem with "homages" as i mentioned before the opening scene is straight out of hammer, and this house scene would have been perfect for a hammer-like movie, but the movie rapidly switches gears and changes to a medical horror.<br /><br />The other problem is that they introduce so many characters it is almost impossible to feel sorry for any of them. There are the med students and their wheelchair bound professor-type "friend" the med students are all: arrogant, boring, money hungry, and stupid. how they made it to med school at all amazes me, unless the med school had to meet its muscle bound hunk/big breast quota. and then there is the vampire hunter who remains mysterious through the movie. hey i can respect that but it would be nice if they didn't set it up like the movie would be about him. then you have random priests, cops, and science types. so many people are introduced and then quickly forgotten about until they need that person to either save the day or jump out for a cheap scare that it becomes quickly tedious.<br /><br />Basically this is a lazy movie. no real scares, just a few predictable jump scares. The set up for these is so elaborate it is hilarious. for examp le the bathtub full of blood. it is so obvious that drac is going to pop out of the murky blood. and yet we have to wait far too long to get to the inevitable jump scare. after this he kills one of the dumber and larger breasted med students. we all know she's going to become one of the undead. but what do the others do? bury her in a shallow grave near the house. sigh, so you know who will jump out at you when the cops show up at the house..........<br /><br />Oh well.<br /><br />Maybe someone will get the hint that it is impossible to make a scary vampire movie and just go for atmospheric, and then we will end up with an entire movie that is as good as the opening scene.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
I cannot believe the same guy directed this crap and Dracula 2000. Dracula 2000 was innovative, fresh, and well written, if poorly acted.<br /><br />This pile can't even claim that. It starts with the defeat of Dracula at the end of Dracula 2000. Then ignores the narrative afterwards describing what happened after that. Following the narrative properly could have made this a good sequel somehow, but Craven chose to go in the style of his older films, having no good tie but the main villain's name.<br /><br />Even the actor playing Dracula was different (going from dark hair in Dracula 2000 to a blonde here).<br /><br />Avoid this movie if you have any respect for your taste in movies. | 0neg
|
This must me one of the worst takes on vampires ever conceived by men. How can one turn such a mesmerizing subject into a totally uninspiring story? Apparantly not such a difficult task... First of all, a conditio sine qua non of any vampirefilm is a dark and gloomy atmosphere with a nice sexy touch, this one lacks all these things.. Too much light - the spots! oh my god, why in the name of Christ/Judas was that about?<br /><br />Every time Dracula came about he was devoured by light (in the script to keep him weak, for the record: just weak) There was only one scene that made it almost worth watching, near the ending of the movie (beatiful dancingscene with Dracula and his new conquest). I really enjoyed the first one, the Judas-twist was defintely original, but this one's just not good, not in any way. Hopefully the third one will cary the vampire-signature I like so much in other classics like Herzog's Nosferatu, Coppola's Dracula or even Interview with the vampire. | 0neg
|
***Possible Spoilers***<br /><br />When I saw this today I had some expectation of how it would be like, not too high, but not low either. This was nothing like I expected at all though, it seems to me like the movie makers couldn't make up their mind of what kind of movie to make.<br /><br />In the begining of the film it's somewhat mysterious and kinda exciting, but that'll soon change to some ridiculous scenes - very obvious scenes... As I watched further I almost fell asleep a couple of times.<br /><br />The ending is the most ridiculous of all though, almost splatter/comedy...<br /><br />I'm not saying it doesn't have some good scenes it's just that the film never becomes "whole".<br /><br />4/10 Movie-Man | 0neg
|
1 out of 10.<br /><br />This is the kind of movie that you cant believe you just wasted 2 hours of your life as you see the credits role. I honestly think I could make a better Vampire movie.... and I know nothing. The only thing that does not just suck (harder than a Vampire) is Jason Scott Lee.... his character is at least a little bit cool, has some mystery, and kicks a little butt. | 0neg
|
It's like what other Dracula movies always do, the minions of Dracula always on Dracula's side, which is what disappointed me at the ending. Regardless the person wants to stay a vampire or not, I would like to see something like in the first movie that the minion fights against her master. It is much interesting (since you can almost predict how the story goes) than just either the priest or D. win the game (we need some surprising plots!). | 0neg
|
I didn't even knew this movie existed until shortly after seeing Blade: Trinity, I was messing around on the Trinity board when I saw some user mention how the Wes Craven series is a lot better then the 'crap' that's Blade, So I did my quick research: Checked the scores on IMDb & RottenTomatoes for Dracula: Ascension, and somewhere along the search I found out that this is a sequel to Dracula 2000. I also noticed that within the Wes Craven Dracula boards there was a real strong following for this movie which is a big contradiction to the scores I was seeing.<br /><br />Now let's take a quick personal recap here. I remember seeing Dracula 2000, and I remember not liking it at all, and then seeing the scores of Dracula: Ascension just lowered my expectations even more, but then again, I'm the type of person that truly needs to watch the movie myself (any movie) so that I can form my own opinion.<br /><br />A couple of things I went in knowing when I started watching this movie was that it's low budget, so because of that, I'm going to have to ignore a lot of the v/fx and just figure it's going to compensated by story & acting, I was also slightly impressed by some of the casting in this movie (Jason London, Roy Schieder & Jason Scott Lee)<br /><br />Oh geez
This movie was CHEESY! But cheesy can be entertaining at least, I found it pretty fricken laughable, the bad audio synch from the re-recording of dialogue in a FEW scenes, the stupidity of the characters in this movie. Sure they all knew about vampires and some of the basic things, Luke even had a book on it, but did it prevent them from wanting to purposely get 'infected'? Nope, this is worst then slasher flicks where the girl has to get out of the shower and check out the noise she hears with nothing more than a towel on.<br /><br />I also must've blinked at some point, because I'm not sure how 'Dracula' got clothes on his body, especially since he's big wild and angry & I figure if I was in that situation, I wouldn't want to be the one dressing him.<br /><br />So the movie ends like any middle movie of a trilogy
it doesn't, instead it's a 'Cliff Hangar' where I now get to wait for the 3rd installment 'Legacy'. Oh the entertainment value of Cheesy movies. | 0neg
|
This movie had mediocrity, laziness, and thoughtlessness written all over it. If you are going to do a movie about vampires that has been done thousands of times already, then you better do a damn good job. I'll be the first to say that this movie just did not cut it. Some scary/horror movies just fail to break the mold of the "lets do something forbidden and forsaken for the sake of fun because all the stories are just lies" cliché. This one, sadly, was no different, and like all scary movies, once you venture down that road there is no going back.<br /><br />And the ending? How do the heroes do the same job over and over throughout the movie, but then mysteriously they get wrapped up in the moment and cannot do the job in the end? The ending was very anti-climatic and spelled part 3 which I will never watch. Terrible movie. | 0neg
|
A painfully protracted, maudlin and predictable drama, my twenty-fifth Sidney Lumet film, Garbo Talks, gets filed precipitously on the low quality end of my quest.<br /><br />The film documents a harried young working man named Gilbert (Ron Silver), who is son to Estelle Rolle (Anne Bancroft), eccentric, feisty and above all, an obsessive fan of Greta Garbo. When Estelle becomes afflicted with a brain tumor, her son decides to go on an obsessive quest of his own: track down Greta Garbo, and bring her to his mother.<br /><br />Anne Bancroft is in full-on, chew-the-scenery Auntie-Mame mode here, that kind of feisty ol' gal that film loves, where she mouths off to people, and stands up for her ideals, and ends up in jail all the time. She stands outside of the film as an obvious artificial construct, and every scene with her is yuk-yuk lame; every note striking false. The rest of the characters are equally as one-dimensional, but tremendously less-interesting. Ron Silver is flat as can be, and his attempted love triangle is as telegraphed as anything else in the film: He is dating affluent Lisa Rolfe (Carrie Fisher), but becomes smitten with oddball co-worker Jane Mortimer (Catherine Hicks), and I called every scene three scenes before they happen.<br /><br />That's the other problem. One-dimensional characters can survive if they are posited in an intriguing and captivating story, but there's simply nothing here. The film's pace is glacial, resplendent with extraneous material that strengthens absolutely nothing, and when the film does begin to follow a linear plot, it's both plodding and uninteresting. There are plenty of guest stars, so to speak, including Harvey Fierstein as a gay New Yorker (imagine that) in yet another highly inessential scene.<br /><br />Late in the film, it attempts to make a halfway-decent statement on the nature of idolatry and its role in our lives, but by that time, none of the characters exist as real people, and the film had bored me into submission, so it functions as a case of far-too-little, far-too-late. The film is my twenty-fifth Lumet-directed film, making him easily my most-viewed director, but outside of a couple egregious misses (A Stranger Among Us, anyone?), he hasn't plumbed the painfully uninteresting depths of Garbo Talks.<br /><br />{Grade: 4.5/10 (C/C-) / #21 (of 24) of 1984 / #23 of 25 Lumet films} | 0neg
|
Anne Bancroft plays Estelle, a dying Jewish mother who asks her devoted son (Ron Silver) to locate reclusive one-time movie star Greta Garbo and introduce the two before Estelle checks out for good. Might've been entitled "Bancroft Talks" as the actress assaults this uncertain comedic/dramatic/sentimental material for its duration. Hot-or-cold director Sidney Lumet can't get a consistent rhythm going, and Bancroft's constant overacting isn't scaled back at all by the filmmaker--he keeps her right upfront: cute, teary-eyed and ranting. Estelle becomes a drag on this scenario (not that the thinly-conceived plot has much going on besides). Silver and co-stars Carrie Fisher and Catherine Hicks end up with very little to do but support the star, and everyone is trampled by her hamming. *1/2 from **** | 0neg
|
This movie was based on actual fact? I sincerely hope not!<br /><br />We get to see what appears to be numerous armed cops empty an equal amount of guns at 2 guys who only got armored torso's. That's a great idea; aim for the armor!...excuse me, but how about those big fat unmissable heads or their legs for crying out loud. Or were there invisible tanks protecting them? were they from Crypton?Did i miss something here?<br /><br />This movie started out decent enough but after 20 minutes of shoot-out it really takes a turn to boringlane.<br /><br />And that documentary style didn't work for me either, but thats just something one finds likable or not.<br /><br />Highly unbelievable stuff which makes it hard to see it through 'til the end.<br /><br />3/10 for the fine editing. | 0neg
|
Contrary to my principles, let me first come up with a conclusion, because I have just seen this piece of "art", and still am under strong impressions. The reader is asked to excuse my stronger vocabulary.<br /><br />Well, this movie is absolutely horrible, and I would never bother to write a single word about it, if it were not for the fact that "44 Minutes" made me sick to death, which rarely happens to me. The fact that I paid for that does not exactly makes me feel better, as well as the fact the movie deserved the high user rating here.<br /><br />So what is wrong with the movie? It has a fashionable title - "44 Minutes". One first thinks about "15 Minutes", which is by the way a much better movie, but still bad in my book, and indeed the two can be compared to some extent. But, as luck would have it, the things they share are their worst characteristics. They both feature Mr. Oleg Taktarov, who with his strong Russian accent obviously meets the popular expectations and prejudices. His purpose is to appeal to the Cold War mind. Ah, do we miss the good old times. Now, I don't imply that he is a bad actor, I am yet to judge his true performance, but he is simply not a true individual here, he is more like an archetype. How anyone can still indulge in such things is completely beyond my comprehension. We can recognize modern American xenophobia here. The point in the movie when Taktarov explains to his companion that Romanians are not Germans, and that they are in America is truly laughable. Are we to assume that the greatest desire of the wretched duo is to become "true" Americans? <br /><br />Then, there is the media issue. Yes, it seems that the most of what we learn comes from cameras, interviews and reporters. The director should have made us feel the rhythm of the presumed 44 minutes. Instead he bores us with interviews throughout the movie like in a cheap TV show, trying to reinvent the wheel. In 15 Minutes the issue of media is the central one.The point is presented in a way a teacher addresses an obtuse student, but that deserves a separate comment, we are focusing on 44 Minutes now. So, I have been trying to identify the purpose of this movie. What is it? To provide good time for the audience? To glorify weapons? To glorify police? Portray violence? Oh yes, the officer gives the Bible to the underage delinquent. So it must promote peace and understanding after all? I don't think so, but don't ask me. I only know I didn't enjoy any of this.<br /><br />Ah, Michael Madsen. I admit, I am a big fan. I hoped he would be a bright point, but I was wrong. It's not his fault though. <br /><br />As the final note, comparing "firepower" to "willpower" at the end of the movie was one of the worst lines I have ever heard.<br /><br />To summarize, on the scale 1-10, I give it a pure, unadulterated 1. | 0neg
|
The funniest scene of this movie is probably when our saviours get their medals and plaques and whatnot. So the basic idea is, the police outnumbers these gangsters by like a million to one, but they're powerless because the villains' guns are just a bit bigger. I guess police ammo just kinda bounces of. They decided to shoot this movie in documentary style with fake interviews and all and seriously, what is wrong with these guys? They're talking like they were armed with rolled-up newspapers. Okay I admit, it's probably still dangerous to be in the line of the fire, even when the situation is so much to your advantage, but don't go nuts. And why the hell did it take 44 minutes to solve everything anyway? I'd say that's a very long time when you have them surrounded and you're allowed to shoot. They're like ten ft. away, they hit absolutely nothing. Then they go and buy bigger guns themselves to increase their heroism. And then yeah, there you have it, one of the cops actually hits someone. Bullet was probably diverted by a lamp post or something. I had a good laugh I guess. | 0neg
|
Men, do I love police movies filled with action, shooting, chases etcetera.<br /><br />Boy, was I let down after watching this short and unsatisfying movie. We've seen it all before, the hostages, the bank, the surrounding... Yet, 2 bad guys that shoot down multiple officers and innocent people who simply stay in the line of fire - without getting hit due to some Kevlar.<br /><br />Not just a few shots, no, hundreds of shots. Going back into the bank, where the dumb hostages didn't lock the safe or doors when the bad guys went out. How stupid did the director think we'd be.<br /><br />Okay, the shots in between that fake a documentary were good, but after seeing the film I only got the thought: why didn't the police get a decent shooting course? And why where there so many cops and was SWAT on a real long break. Truly bad. | 0neg
|
Yeah, Madsen's character - whilst talking to the woman from the TV station - is right: the LAPD IS a corrupt, violent and racist police. And this movie changes nothing about it. Okay, here are the good cops, the moral cops, even a black one, whow, a Christian, a martyr. But this is a fairy tale, admit it. Reality is not like that. And most important for the action fans: The shoot out is boring. It's just shooting and shooting and shooting. Nothing more. Play Counter Strike, then you will at least have something to do. The only moral of this film is: The LAPD is good now. No more bad cops in it. If you like uncritical, euphemistic commercials for police and military service, watch this movie. It's the longest commercial I've ever seen. (2 Points for camera and editing). | 0neg
|
As we all know Hollywood enjoys changing historical events around for our enjoyment, and 44 minutes is one of those hollywoodized movies. For example the bank robbers never did go back in the bank when they started shooting at the LAPD yet in the movie we see them go back inside twice! Another example is the number of LAPD officers who were shot near the end of the movie, this is far from the truth! But of course Hollywood must have a good bloody ending so they *add* some more blood and guts. Some events were combined and many of the lead actors played several different people but this is what Hollywood has always done so why complain? I guess the only sad part is that I have watched some one hour documentaries about the North Hollywood shootout on TLC that were far better then this! | 0neg
|
This was a better than average movie I thought, for it being on cable. I had expected something along the lines of cheesy melodrama and bad special effects seen in such classics as Christmas Rush or First Daughter/Target/Shot, etc.<br /><br />The cast was well chosen...I especially liked Ron Livingston as the hard pressed SWAT Commander. It's good to see him revisiting the same material he had so much fortune with in Band of Brothers. The producers and designers had done their homework because all the scenes and shots looked like they did on that day back in 1997.<br /><br />So, if you get a chance to see this film, and I am sure you will since FX reruns everything 50 times...take 2 hours and enjoy it. | 0neg
|
This movie is awful. At the end of it you will realize that several hours have been stolen from your life that you can't get back. The "twist" ending is very contrived. The character development leading up to this ending is not consistent with their final actions at the conclusion. Ninety minutes of preparation-- with the premise that the Rob Lowe character will die on Christmas Eve-- is explained away in literally ninety seconds of "No we were just tricking you." Then the Rob Lowe character is not even upset about it! "I will forgive you if you can forgive me," is as upset as he gets. If someone took weeks to convince me I was about to die and then said "No, sorry , just fooling you" I would raise some serious hell. I don't feel bad about giving away the spoiler because I might be able to save some of you out there from watching. Please save yourself and DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE. | 0neg
|
JUDAAI was a bold film by Raj Kanwar at it's time In 1997 when such a topic was damn out of the box<br /><br />To give him his credit he does succeed in showing how greed changes a person and to what extent the person can go to get what she wants<br /><br />The film however is damn melodramatic, many places ridiculous<br /><br />One wonders why Anil doesn't buy a TV for his wife? when he earns so much Just to show how poor he is?<br /><br />The twist is well handled but the handling is straight out of 80's The Johny- Paresh comedy which entertains here and there stands out as a sore thumb as it doesn't fit in the story<br /><br />Even there are several cringeworthy scenes<br /><br />Direction by Raj Kanwar is adequate though at times too melodramatic Music is okay but most songs look forced<br /><br />Anil does his part well Sridevi is excellent in her part Urmila is decent Amongst rest Kader Khan is as usual Johny Lever is funny, Paresh irritates Farida is decent | 0neg
|
Well, if you like pop/punk, punk, ska, and a tad bit of modern psycho billy, then seeing the live performances are about the only thing worth watching. This movie has tons and tons of band cameos, along with president of Troma, Lloyd Kaufman as a semi-major role, and lots of goofy death scenes. Sounds like it may be good, right? Well, the deaths keep coming, and repeatedly to many different bands of the Warp Tour and the fans at the event. Some of the deaths start of stylish, but then they are recycled over and over, to the point of being completely repetitive. Almost everyone dies of having their head smashed, or intestines being pulled from their stomach. The gore looks as if it was from Andreas Schnaas' "Zombie 90: Extreme Pestilence"; with this being the "watered-down type blood", but now that movie is actually decent, and provides humor-something that this movie terribly lacks. Sure, the movie is made by Doug Sakmann from Troma, it's got great low-budget potential, and it tries...but just too hard. Everything is overly meant to be funny in this movie, and thats what brings it down. Everything tries to be too comic and goofy, by using intentional bad acting, an overuse of pointless deaths, and doing the same thing...over and over. It's basically "Mulva: Zombie Ass-Kicker", "Chairman of the Board", or any movie you have made with your friends: it's funny to those who made it, and that's about it.<br /><br />Great potential, great idea, great use of effects-but it's the same thing...over and over: A band plays, a band dies, fans die. Everyone dies, blood is sprayed everywhere, the process is repeated.<br /><br />The question is for these types of movies-which is basically 'bad slap-stick'-do they try too hard, or not at all? | 0neg
|
I just finished watching this movie. I was very excited since I'm a big fan of Punk Rock, Horror films and Spoofs. I was very surprised at what I saw. I knew it was low budget, but I wasn't expecting it to be taped with a video camera. It opens with a good song and a great, very underrated band, The Horrorpops, reforming their song, Where They Wander, and promptly getting killed in various gruesome ways. It's a great opening. But the problem is the fact that, up until the end, this was really all that the movie was. A live performance, A death. Another live performance, A death. It gets old. And there is a gross(literally) overuse of intestines in the death scenes. Why doesn't the killer use other body parts, like legs, or eyeballs, or brains? Don't get me wrong, this movie has some parts that are awesome. Like the hardcore French band, known simply as BERET, the prospect of a band named Atticus, the scene containing a performance by members of the The Used and Simple Plan playing together, since neither bands had enough members to play their show, and Bowling For Soup's Overweight-and-proud-of-it guitarist getting killed in a truly hilarious manner, that I will save for the future watchers of this movie. But the big problem I have with this movie is the at first comical, but after a while, terrible lack of acting talent in a lot of the "actors". Especially Warped Tour creator, Kevin Lyman. He tries very hard, but I suspect that he didn't want to make the film, but was contractually obligated or something. In addition to that, the sound quality is terrible and there are no subtitles on the DVD. The Movie's resolving plot is very hazy and very random. something about a magic sword and Lloyd Kaufman as the devil. Bottom line, this movie has a lot of good qualities, but not enough to be anywhere near a decent Horror, Music, or Comedy film. Although I have to credit it with turning me onto a few bands that I would never have listened to, otherwise. Such as Tsunami Bomb, and the Phenomonauts(an insane, Psychobilly band). I recommend that you rent this movie, watch the first 10 or 20 minutes, if you like it, watch the next 20 or 30, if you still like it, then watch on. If not, just go to the special features and watch all the music videos and live performances. They rock! Long live Punk Rock and Horror! | 0neg
|
It's not the most well made slasher movies of all time, but for what it is, it's pretty amusing. The plot is lame but the kills are not too bad. I have to be honest, if you don't follow the bands that are featured in this film, you wont find this film as funny as those who do. I knew someone who saw this film and was really disappointed because of the poor quality of the film but you have to understand that it was made in the spare time of being on tour, in between playing to moshing kids and drinkin' with friends backstage...it's not made to be taken seriously. It's ubber cheese at it's punk best and with over 100 kills,most of which are ultra gory, it's a fun movie to have friends over to watch, drink and be merry! | 0neg
|
I couldn't believe I spent $14.00 on this. The only redeeming quality is the outrageous gore. The dubbing was worse than any I have ever experienced. It looks like it was shot with a VHS camcorder. I think every pfennig was spent on the special effects because there was a whole lot of blood and body parts everywhere. Its one of the worst movies I have ever seen but I do have to acknowledge the plentiful gore that wasn't as disgusting as it could have been because the whole movie is so silly and unbelievable | 0neg
|
Karl Jr and his dad are now running an army on a remote island. They capture a trio of guys who stumble upon the island. Whom after a while fight back. (well the survivors) This one has non-stop blood, gore and carnage, which would have been good if any of it looked remotely real, or if the production didn't look like it was made with a weeks worth of saved up lunch money (I may be overexxagerating there. it was probably just a couple days worth). The horrendous dubbing didn't bother me as much and I suspect if I had been really drunk, some of it MIGHT have been slightly humorous....maybe. But as it is, at merely 78 minutes the movie still felt way too long by.. Oh I don't know... 78 minutes. Don't waste your time.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />DVD Extras: Bonus movie: "Zombie '90: Extreme Pestilence"; and Trailers for other Shock-o-Rama released films | 0neg
|
I felt obliged to watch this movie all the way through, since I had found it in a bargain bin and bought it for my own, but I came close many times to turning it off and just writing off the money I had paid for it. If you are a fan of gore and sadism, this movie is OK. If there is one thing that the makers of this film know, it is the creative use of fake blood and body parts for a sickening effect. If that doesn't thrill you, then stay away.<br /><br />This movie is shot on a home video camera, with grade school props and terrible actors. It's dubbed from German, but even allowing for that, the sound is awful. This film is about as budget as budget gets, except for the aforementioned special effects. If they had spent a little more money on actors and a real script instead of blood and guts, the film might have been a little more enjoyable.<br /><br />The story is about three men that land on an island inhabited by an army of tin-masked sadists. They are captured, and the rest of the movie is about their attempt to escape. I call this a story in the loosest sense, since it is really a series of scenes of torture and combat strung together by inane obscenity-filled dialog.<br /><br />There is nothing whatsoever redeeming about this movie, unless you like mindless gore. Consider yourself warned. | 0neg
|
Ok, I like B movies...I know what B movies are supposed to represent. But this is just awful. I am amazed it got such a decent overall score. The only redeeming qualities of this flick are the (mostly) marginal splatter effects. Don't get me wrong, gore abounds in this flick - but few effects really jumped out at me (like the anal "probe"...that was great!).<br /><br />I believe this movie was filmed on a camcorder. C'mon - rent a Betacam at least, I've seen porn with better production values (and better acting as well).<br /><br />Acting - sucked! But not in the Troma or Full Moon sort of way.<br /><br />Story - contrived! But thats what you get from films like these. Very loose!<br /><br />Sets & Props - sucked! My 16 year old brother makes more elaborate sets for our house on Halloween.<br /><br />Dubbing and dialogue - sucked! Horrible voice acting (I shouldn't even call it acting) and every other word is "S**t" or "F**k".<br /><br />There are tons of good classic and B rated horror / splatter flicks out there and they are not that hard to track down. Do yourself a favor by not wasting time on this crap! | 0neg
|
I am a big fan of low budget horror movies like this, but come on! This has to be the worst piece of monkey S@#t I have ever seen! I ignored the reviews posted on this site figuring that it would fall into my taste in horror, but I got bored and turned it off.Let's see:<br /><br />The wardrobe: Consisted of cheap cameo outfits and painters outfits from home depot. The masks were made from what looks like tin foil. <br /><br />The Gore: The Gore was pretty good, I must give it that. But Ittenbach's Burning moon was better for a low budget movie. <br /><br />Acting: Was horrible! I didn't mind the dubbing. I find this humorous like in Ittenbach's "Premutos" (great movie). The fighting and action sequences were pi$$ poor.<br /><br />Bottom line: Don't watch any of Schnaas's movies. There are much better directors like Jorg Buttergeit and Olaf Ittenbach with movies of the same gore and subject matter. Check Premutos, House of blood, Schramm and the nekromantiks. | 0neg
|
I cannot believe how bad this piece of garbage is! I want my $3.99 back! Words defy description of this poorly made piece of crap! The dubbing in no way shape or form aligns with the actor's mouths. The movie looks like it was filmed with a 1970's vintage camcorder. I have shot better movies with my cell phone camera. The gore is laughable due to the silly unbelievable plot. The acting is what one would expect if you called all your friends over on a Saturday afternoon and proceeded to get completely ripped, then tried to put on a play in your garage. Don't get me wrong...I wasn't expecting O'Neil and I love Zombie movies, but the production values are so low in this film as to make it unwatchable. Avoid! | 0neg
|
I am dumbfounded that I actually sat and watched this. I love independent films, horror films, and the whole zombie thing in general. But when you add ninga's, you've crossed a line that should never be crossed. I hope the people in this movie had a great time making it, then at least it wasn't a total waste. You'd never know by watching it though. Script? Are you kidding. Acting? I think even the trees were faking. Cinematography? Well, there must've been a camera there. Period. I don't think there was any actual planning involved in the making of this movie. Such a total waste of time that I won't prolong it by commenting further. | 0neg
|
Wow...I can't believe just how bad ZOMBIE DOOM (aka VIOLENT SH!T 3) really is. I'd heard the rumors, read the reviews - but had to make my mind up for myself. Well, let me tell ya - IT BLOWS!!! The worst acting of any film ever made, dubbing that must have been done while everyone involved was completely wasted, inept and laughable gore FX, no discernible plot, "cinematography" that looks like my grandma filmed it with her camcorder, weapons props that are no joke - made out of tin-foil - the list goes on and on...<br /><br />Three guys get stranded on an island where a bunch of weirdos run around with plastic and tin-foil swords. Two of the captives are freed along with a rebel of the island freaks, and are given a day's head start before they are hunted down by the rest of the "tribe"...that's pretty much it...<br /><br />Honestly - this is one of THE WORST films I've ever had the misfortune to subject myself too. The budget had to be about $200 and was spent entirely on the gore FX (which actually may not have been a bad idea...). There is NOTHING to ZOMBIE DOOM other than strung-together ridiculous looking gore scenes with lots of HORRIBLY dubbed dialog. This film makes other no-budget outings like PREMUTOS: LORD OF THE LIVING DEAD look like TITANIC. Some may rank ZD in the "so-bad-it's-good" category - and I guess if you're REALLY drunk or high and watching it with a few friends MST3K-style - I guess it could be looked at that way. But not by me. I hated pretty much everything about it. If ZOMBIE DOOM or ZOMBIE 90 (which is equally appalling and is included as a "bonus" on the Shock-O-Rama release of ZD) is indicative of Andreas Schnaas' other works - then he should be banned from ever having anything to do with making a film ever again under penalty of death. There is one amusing kung-fu battle in the latter half of the film, and a lot of blood - so I'll grant this one a VERY generous 3/10 - Do yourself a favor and skip this. | 0neg
|
This movie is another Christian propaganda film in the line of The Omega Code. Not that that is necessarily bad but for the fact that most propaganda films sacrifice sincerity and realism for the message they wish to deliver. If you enjoy a styrofoam portrayal of life on the streets and the way the Gospel can change a life, than perhaps you may enjoy this movie. I say, save your money and rent The Cross and The Switchblade or The Mission. When will Christian directors learn that sometimes people say bad words? It was frustrating to see criminals depicted who are not allowed to swear (huh? criminals say bad words?) and flat characters I really could not relate to. Also, it would've been great if the movie had shown some T&A. Now that would be something I'd like to pay to see. Who was the blockhead who compared this communion wafer-thin story of a movie with The Boondock Saints and The Sting? | 0neg
|
STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits <br /><br />In this debut effort for Nick Park's beloved man and dog, they are forced to fly to the moon when good old Wallace runs out of cheese.<br /><br />As well as being the shortest feature at just 22 minutes, this W/G adventure is also the earliest and it kinda shows. The plasticine animation is a little creaky and funny here, sort of reminiscent of the Mork animation about the little man in the box.<br /><br />Admirable though the craftsmanship behind it is, I've never actually been hugely into Wallace & Gromit (maybe a bit too clean and traditional for someone of my generation.) The only one I've really enjoyed is The Wrong Trousers (and that was more from when I was younger and less aware of, shall we say, the seedier pleasures of life.) I was driven to actively seek out this early effort due to the resurgence in popularity as a result of the hugely successful recent film adaptation.<br /><br />As technically impressive as the first two (all things considered!) this one lacks the emotional angle it's successors were to possess. That being said, it's fairly good fun as a first try and certainly set the standard for greater things to come. Two stars, but a good two stars. ** | 0neg
|
I'll be honest, this is one of the worst movies ever. If not, then it's VERY close. Ever seen a bad teen soap opera. Well this is like one of those. Except worse. For example: (POSSIBLY SPOILER) girl: I wanna go somewhere else.<br /><br />guy: all we need is here.<br /><br />girl: but I wanna take myself somewhere different.<br /><br />guy: I'll take YOU somewhere else.<br /><br />... Proceeding this line they have sex. The music is bad pop and bad punk rock. If you've EVER read the book, avoid this movie like the plague. They completely change the personalities of the characters and the events. Additionally, they just get rid of things. Also, the movie ends about before the book finishes. It is an AWFUL movie. So, if you haven't read the book, don't watch it. If you HAVE read the book, burn it (the movie). If you like stupid teen soap operas that are lower quality than your average low quality teen soap opera, go for it. Then again, should we expect anything different from MTV? | 0neg
|
I wasn't expecting much of this film- a fun little diversion. Wuthering Heights could be turned into a plausible modern story- nice and soapy, melodramatic and intriguing. But this film decided to throw away the talents of the people involved in a simpering version so watered down from the source material that it's amazing they had the guts to call it Wuthering Heights at all. It ignores the fact that it is a story of people who are in essence unlikeable, mostly unsympathetic, and frequently cruel to one another. It changes the very nature of certain characters- Isabelle, for instance, in the novel, had not a conniving bone in her body- they've stripped her blind idealism and turned her into a scheming whore. Heathcliff is an awful person who psychologically tortures most people in his path, but in this version Catherine ends up leaving her daughter in his care. The dialog is trite and one wonders how the actors managed to deliver any of it with straight faces. In place of depth or actual emotions, we know they mean something when they scream it in someone's face. I've read criticism of the early 90's version, "Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights" which featured Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche, saying that it turned an intensely dark, Gothic story into a sudsy bodice-ripper. Slightly valid comments, but the MTV version goes a step further, using the basic story structure to deliver chipper beach bums cavorting to really bad music. | 0neg
|
What an empty and lack lustre rendition of the classic novel. I do wish people would stop messing about with classics when they clearly have no idea of the real intention or point of the original. This version is no different. I felt that the Ralph Fiennes version is much worse though as the casting of Juliette brioche as Kathy has got to be the worst casting decision EVER...anyway back to this version. It aims to make the story relevant to a contemporary setting and in a musical style. It succeeds in both but high art it is nit. Throwaway viewing for a rainy day maybe...The direction was average and the editing abysmal. Worse than the old Quincy. Deepak Verma does a great turn as Hindley and is in fact one of Britains wasted talents. The part of Heath was played with great charm and belief and I think that the casting is the strongest point of this project. Although a more talented director would have made better use of the facilities he had. Its clear that he was a director for hire and didn't instill the project with the passion that it deserved. | 0neg
|
I just saw this movie premiere on MTV. I must say this was extremely mediocre (at its best). The dialogue doesn't explain the story very well, and I was left feeling like there were a lot of plot holes. There isn't one likable character in this adaptation due to poor acting. I just find that all of the characters are way too possessive when it comes to someone they love. Also, Cate and Heath's love seems very incestuous. They seem more like brother and sister rather than lovers. I don't understand why the father would accept something like that under his roof.<br /><br />I watched this movie because of a few actors that I respected and enjoyed to watch in previous films, but like I said, it's extremely hard to like any of the characters. Katherine Heigl's performance was horrid which was a complete shocker. She was terrible at being the bitchy older sister of Edward, and there just wasn't enough lines for Aimee Osbourne for me even to critique her performance. Johnny Whitworth did well and it was great seeing him in something recent and even though his character was a bit kooky, he was the only person I sympathized with. As for Erika Christensen and Mike Vogel, they were supposed to be our heroines, but came off as whiny and overdramatic.<br /><br />I just didn't enjoy this movie very much or the music in it. There was a brief appearance of the Christian punk band, MxPx, but that small appearance would not convince me to watch this movie again. MTV did a tremendous job in convincing me this was a movie it was not. I just pictured something so completely different. | 0neg
|
awful, just awful! my old room mate used to watch this junk and it drove me crazy. the book is one of my favorites and its a shame that some people will never know what it is really like because their first impressions are from dribble like this. they changed so much it is hardly recognisable. which baffles me since the book reads like a soap opera anyway, providing enough fodder for modern day entertainment. it's like one of those Lifetime movies that say "based on a true story" but are completely fictional. there is none of the emotion or depth of the book, just mindless melodrama. if you are a high school student looking for a way to get out of reading, i suggest you try another version. | 0neg
|
waste of my life, .... the director should be embarrassed. why people feel they need to make worthless movies will never make sense to me. when she died at the end, it made me laugh. i had to change the channel many times throughout the film because i was getting embarrassed watching such poor acting. hopefully the guy who played Heath never gets work again. On top of that i hope the director never gets to make another film, and has his paycheck taken back for this crap. { .02 out of 10 } | 0neg
|
Dane tries to hard and is to extreme with all of his yelling and going crazy, spilling water on himself and rolling on the floor. To much. Calm down, get yourself together and make us laugh. I didn't quite understand his comparison toward comics and rock stars. Just because there both up on stage or something? He said that every comedian wants to be a rock star. I'm sure Rodney Dangerfield was really into that when he was alive. He had a few good jokes like the Burger King joke where people yell at the drive thru. I also liked the Reese's Pieces joke. If Dane just didn't act so mental he might be funnier and I might have given this a higher rating, as high as maybe an eight. | 0neg
|
'A Smile LIke Yours' is a pathetic comedy that actually makes no sense. I don't mean that the story was complicated, but the entire plot is based on one thing: a couple's desperate and expensive unsuccessful attempts to conceive children. People who tried that hard must've forgotten of the option of the adoption, to which this movie is not kind to.<br /><br />Lauren Holly plays Jennifer Robertson, a complete contradiction to anything offered by the women's liberation movement, exhibiting almost no sense of independence. She is quite a boring character as the dreamy housewife with absolutey nothing else on her mind but to have kids. Like a dumb 50's romance comedy, Greg Kinnear is her submitting husband who likewise displays no personality, no independence, and from us, no interest.<br /><br />They are the two most boring and often annoying characters, and they hardly make for topics of a comedy that should present itself with many mishaps, which should arise from a couple doing all they can to get pregnant. Except, they really don't do anything except go to a fertility clinic and shell out a whole lot of money to do what they could do in the privacy of their own (except for that in vitro fertilization number). The plot hardly allows for any mishaps, because well, the couple don't do anything to create any sort of bizarre situation. They just go to this clinic. So what?<br /><br />The subplots are meant to test the faithfulness of the couple, a necessary moral element of the story since the couple does plan on conceiving children together. Jennifer works at a new age shop with her friend (played by Joan Cusak), and they are in the business of developing aphrodesiacs. Christopher MacDonald plays the intrested buyer and Jennifer is the promising negotiator of a pretty price for her and her friend's product. The subplot hardly offers much to keep you interested (although Joan Cusak is pretty funny in the restaraunt scene).<br /><br />Danny (Kinear) is an architect, who finds an opportunity to make some extra money to cover the clinic bills, by taking on a job in Seattle, where his boss is the crass seductress (also another hopeless, helpless female character) who tries to influence Danny (as dumb as he is) to have an affair with her once things are conveniently rocky with him and his wife (for reasons I don't care to give away). Jill Hennesy is good in the role, but her character is too predictable, and too formulaic as a much needed element to create conflict for Danny. It is stupid and once again, hardly interesting. <br /><br />The overall movie itself is utterly boring, and hardly funny at all (save the restaraunt scene and the airline flight). The plot offers nothing that is really attention-grabbing. Even if the story was entirely about two people trying to conceive, the writers could've figured out several hilarious mishaps to develop out of that. Second, the main characters are completely boring. They are complete silouhettes of dumb 1950s comedies with happy wife and clueless husband. So, even without mishaps present in the plot, the characters themselves offer nothing interesting, let alone funny.<br /><br />Joan Cusak should've been in the lead and someone else should've taken Kinnear's part. Cusak would've made even a lousy story outrageously funny (as she sometimes does in her co-starring role here). This is definitely one to pass up. | 0neg
|
The best that I can say about this film is that it was mildly amusing at times, and that it was an adequate time killer. Unfortunately, this film is also so annoying that I wanted to slap these characters around. This is the kind of film that is so sweet, it hurts your teeth. The intentions were good, I suppose, but things get awfully tiresome when the dialogue is SO nauseating. When the two leads aren't together on-screen, this really isn't bad at all, but be afraid during those frequent moments when the loving couple starts talking to one another. | 0neg
|
This is meant to be a comedy but mainly bad taste, and nothing remotely causing a smile in the film. The movie is about a couple trying for a child, and those people in real life who are in that situation will wince at the depictions that are portrayed. For instance scenes at a fertility clinic are not in the least funny and are quite frankly embarrassing. The male lead who plays a construction worker and in his hard hat comes across as a poor excuse for a reject from Village People. The female lead is trying to look 20 years younger than she is. Both leads come across as unappealing,unattractive and completely unconvincing. There are various ridiculous and totally unassuming gratuitous scenes in the film, for example with a budget airline, which is devoid of any humor. The only reason I give this 3/10 instead of 1/10 is one mark for Shirley Maclaine, who is a a class above anything else in the pic, and one mark for some half decent(albeit old) music. | 0neg
|
This game has the(dis)honor of being the first game that I have stopped playing right in the middle of and felt like smashing into bits and then burning. Congratulations. FIRST and LAST Tomb Raider I will ever play I assure you.<br /><br />Plot: Just typing that word made me laugh. There isn't one. Neither is there character development. We finally have a girl heroine who can take care of herself,who isn't a *beeping*mary-sue,but unfortunately she dresses like a slut and her breast are huge. They had to attract the sexist boy gamers you see. Anyway all she does is go in tomb after tomb shooting things as she goes along. Why she does this I have no idea. I had subtitles on and the t.v. as loud as I could and I still didn't understand a damn thing. The development(or lack there of) for her, her two friends and the*villains*were laughable. There also will be levels that you have to go through that do-not give you any hint on what you have to do next and you literally will be in most of the boring as hell tombs for HOURS trying to figure out what the hell you are supposed to be doing. There is one course(out of two) in particular with her on a motorbike(Believe me it is not at all fun)that you will be on for ATLEASE an HOUR with NO save point in sight. That means you get hit by the other motorist and guys in vans shooting at you or you hit a tree you start the hour long trek OVER.<br /><br />Boss Stupid F*ck: You know lets makes the levels very long, have basically no save points, have no story, no character development, give no variety in game play, have most of the music on the longest levels ear-bleeding,and give no hints whatsoever to the player so they can stay even longer in a place instead of getting to the nonexistent plot.<br /><br />Stupid F*ck one: Those sound like bang up ideas.<br /><br />Stupid F*ck two: I concur. Who needs character development ,plot, or unboring game-play.<br /><br />Todd: I'm sorry sir,but these ideas seem like they will extremely p*ss the player off.<br /><br />Boss Stupid F*ck: Shut up Todd. You're fired.<br /><br />Game-play: All she does is shoot. Of course she can flip while SHOOTING, jump while SHOOTING, or kick while again SHOOTING.But flipping, jumping, and kicking does not erase the fact that all she is ultimately doing is SHOOTING. BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Music: The intro music is extremely beautiful. I love listening to it. The in game music goes from tolerable to wanting to cut your ears off.<br /><br />Visuals:Considering this game was made in 2006, I was expecting the visuals to blow me away.Well I was blown,but definitely not in a good way.<br /><br />Bottom-line: This game is a plot-less, no character development mess with a barely dressed unmarysuish(THANKFULLY)young women in the lead that goes through boring tombs for some boring reason(what that might be I couldn't tell you)with unimaginative shooting gameplay. STAY FAR AWAY FROM THIS B.S.!!!!!!!!It's gets two stars for having a women who isn't a damsel in distress(No matter how scantily clad she might be) and the beautiful into music. | 0neg
|
OK, plain and simple, if you are a fan of the other Tomb Raider games (yes, even AOD) KEEP AWAY FROM LEGEND.<br /><br />It is, without doubt, the most disappointing TR game yet. It looks very nice, it sounds very nice, but it is totally unplayable and I've given up. I feel like I've been robbed by Eidos.<br /><br />It's very simple. TR was a PC game before anything else. You control Lara using the keyboard. In 6 Tomb Raider games the controls were standard. In AOD they were 'tacky', but still the same general control sequences. In Legend they have changed her movement and control methods completely and she is totally uncontrollable.<br /><br />I have seen comments elsewhere from people who say 'Use the mouse'. No, why should I? Others say 'Use a gamepad'. No, why should I? Others say 'But this has been the standard for 3rd person controls for years' Well, I don't care, it is not the standard for any other TR game so why mess with it. Oh, I know, because they couldn't care less about their original, loyal fan base, they want to cash in on the new kids who hadn't even heard of the series until the movies came out and make lots more money. Pathetic.<br /><br />My advice to any serious TR fan is keep away from this game, and if you do buy it complain to Eidos. I have seen masses of other posts, mainly on the Eidos forums, from people telling them how rubbish it is, perhaps they will listen. | 0neg
|
<br /><br />I'm not sure who decides what category a movie fits into, but this movie is NOT a horror movie. As for the story, it was fairly interesting, but rather slow. I was especially disappointed with the ending though.<br /><br />**spoiler**<br /><br />Tell me why on Earth does she run over to her uncle's(?) home without at least calling the detective or the police first? She knows exactly what's going on at that point, plus she has a video tape as proof. Instead, she runs over there and starts going nuts and saying "I know everything, I have proof! You didn't expect proof, did you?!" Then she acts surprised when her uncle stands up and starts walking over to her as if he's going to harm her. Well DUH! Of course he's going to harm you idiot, you just told him you know everything and have proof to expose everything. What a dumb ending. | 0neg
|
Spanish horrors are not bad at all, some are smart with interesting stories, but is not the case of "Second Name". It is badly directed, badly acted and boring...boring...boring, a missed chance for an interesting story. | 0neg
|
After the overrated success of Amenabar and Balaguero, Spanish Horror Movies spread like a disease in the increasingly sad world of horror movies. The result is all in films like El segundo nombre, a TV-like production bad written, but acted and directed even worse. I didn't read the Ramsey Campbell book, but I'm sure that the author of The Doll Who Ate Its Mother didn't have much in common with this terrible production. Avoid it at any cost, unless you're searching for a quiet sleepy night in a fresh movie theater. 2/10 | 0neg
|
I have never seen such terrible performances in all my life.<br /><br />Everyone in the entire film was absolute rubbish.<br /><br />Not one decent actor/actress in the whole film, it was a joke.<br /><br />Reminded me of drama at school... | 0neg
|
This is one of those films that makes you want the time you spent watching it back, and then some, like the time you spent accidentally picking it out, the time you spent getting to the video store, etc.<br /><br />First off, the look: It's grainy, it's low budget. Now that in itself doesn't make for a bad film. But the way it was filmed makes the action look unnatural, so that's kind of distracting.<br /><br />Then, the story. 3 gals go on a gal's weekend away from guys. Of course, as EVERYONE does when going on a camping trip, they stop on the way to get earrings. When they arrive at the area in which they're going to stay, they get pulled over by Mr. Ranger Sir, who scolds them for throwing a lit cigarette out of the car at fire season, and then drives them where they're going (a remote cabin). Of course, 2 "cute guys" wander into their vicinity, and Bambi (yes, Bambi) and Aubry are immediately smitten, but apparently Bambi is smitten by anything with two legs. Mady is rather disappointed by this development because she was looking forward to a weekend of forgetting about her ex by getting sh**-faced and stoned with her gal-pals.<br /><br />Oh, and I almost forgot, there's a mean old hermit that lives up that way, that's perhaps someone to not tangle with, and the area & cabin in which they're staying have a sort of "reputation".<br /><br />So of course, sooner or later (unfortunately, MUCH later) some of our weekend wood-visitors begin to die, and find various booby traps (although a couple of them actually hit a little lower than that) and of course, the remaining campers are understandably upset. No cell phone reception of course (who would miss out on a chance to check their cell phone for reception in a movie anymore?). Mr. Ranger Sir keeps popping up at odd times & his behavior seems a bit odd but he has said he will get help.<br /><br />There's a fantastic twist to this that you just won't want to miss too, if you're still awake. Pray that you wake up to a blank screen.<br /><br />The acting in this is terrible, the production values are terrible, and the whole undertaking is just lame & I find it amazing this was even released. Avoid at all costs, 1 out of 10. | 0neg
|
"True" story of three girls who go into the wilds of Connecticut and end up hunted by a maniac in the woods. This is the sort of film that would have played in the drive ins across America thirty years ago to mixed acclaim. Not particularly much of anything the film works with its low budget to mixed results. The film is watchable but isn't at all scary (blame how some of the attack scenes for that). Its the sort of film that you'll probably forget about once you're done with it. Odds are that you're never going to think to see this unless its handed to you by someone and told, "here watch this", which is what happened to me. If you're handed a copy give it back, the film isn't worth the effort to see it even if it is watchable. | 0neg
|
After a fairly lengthy partially pixelated nude shower scene, we're off to the races for this "Blair Witch Project"-esquire horror film about three girlfriends venturing to a desolate cabin deep in the woods to get away from their hectic lives for a girls' weekend out and smoke pot. They meet two guys who seem friendly enough, so they drink and tell ghost stories, until late in the movie some of them get picked off.<br /><br />This is a fairly slow movie, with needlessly drawn out 'suspense' scenes, the bad acting can't carry the myriad of scenes where nothing happens but mindless banter, and the movie as a whole is a dud, a deathly-boring dud at that. Nothing at all happens until the last half hour and when it did I was to numb to really care.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Ashley Totin shows T&A; Evy Lutzky gets topless briefly; and Jennifer Hart shows her right tit <br /><br />My Grade: D | 0neg
|
HORRENDOUS! Avoid like the plague. I would rate this in the top 10 worst movies ever. Special effects, acting, mood, sound, etc. appear to be done by day care students...wait, I have seen programs better than this. Opens like a soft porn show with a blurred nude female doing a shower scene then goes bad from there. Good nude scenes, but that is it. Sound and light problems were persistent throughout the movie. At times I would swear I could hear the roaring of the camera motors. YIKES! I would like to see another movie on this story, but done by different people. This batch of actors and crew need more acting and movie making lessons. Voted 1 out of 10. | 0neg
|
I'm not saying that because the production values were so low, but because it was filmed terribly. That shot of the girl washing her hair in the creek? Did we really need to sit there for an overlong shot and watch her do that for 5 minutes in the same spot? It was terrible, the lighting was just plain bad. You could barely see anything and when the characters were talking, you could barely hear what they were saying. Did I watch the whole movie? Of course not I skipped through most of it, and I don't want to hear anyone say I need to watch the whole thing first to judge it. This film was so poorly done and executed that even by independent and low budget standards it's just plain terrible. Awful movie...don't waste any time on it unless you want a good laugh, but even then it's not because of the actors "funny" lines, it's because of how painstakingly bad the production is. | 0neg
|
Most of the French films I've seen - and enjoyed - were more talk than action, but that's okay. I found them interesting, well-photographed and with intriguing actors. (However, I did at one point wonder if Gerald Depardieu was in every French film ever made! It seemed that way.)<br /><br />This movie has the same interesting visuals and had a good opening. But then it became talk, talk and more talk....which is fine for a drama but not for a murder mystery. After awhile, I almost fell asleep watching this.<br /><br />Actually, the film was more like a play with almost all the scenes played out in one room. Thus, if you love plays, you should like this...but I want a little more bang for a murder story. | 0neg
|
Green Street, as it was called in the UK, or Hooligans is a bad film. The story is full of fantastical ideas and premises that anyone who lives in England, has been to a football match or knows the first thing about football will spot immediately.<br /><br />My first main gripe with Hooligans is the poor casting of the two main characters. Don't get me wrong, I like Elijah Wood and have a great respect for his work, but despite his best efforts he struggled to pull off this role. The main motivation for his character is anger at the system and anger at betrayal, however he spends much of the film placid and cheery, only displaying his pent up aggression in one brief scene towards the end of the film. This linked with his looks and physique make him a thoroughly unconvincing addition to a gang of football hooligans. At no point during the film was I convinced that a) he could handle himself in a fight against such thugs and b) the 'firm' of thugs would accept such a person into their fold.<br /><br />The other main character is played by Charlie Hunnam. Charlie looks the part, and is fairly convincing as a thug. Unfortunately, being a native of Newcastle Upon Tyne in the North of England, he demonstrates the worst East London accent since Dick Van Dyke tried to go cock-en-y in Marry Poppins. Details such as this probably will not bother an American audience who will be less attuned to regional dialect in the UK, but being from the UK it was a problem I couldn't ignore and it contributed to ruining the movie for me. The supporting cast all gave convincing performances and were well cast, especially the role of Bover. The lad playing this character would have been much more suited to the main role that Charlie played. With a film like this, you have to convince the audience that your characters are plausible, unfortunately, the casting failed. Imagine if you made a film like The Godfather and had Sean Hayes (Jack) from Will and Grace playing Michael Corleone's part. You would not be convinced. The story in Hooligan is also full in implausibilities. I am no football Hooligan, but I am a fantatical football fan. I know how cliquey a group of 'regular' football supporters can be, as such it deem it impossible for a non-football fan, who is not a fan of the club in question, is not from the area in question and not even of English nationality to be embraced by a 'firm' who equate to a secret organisation in some severe cases. My final, and biggest, problem with this film, is the way it portrays football hooligans. I take objection to the film's idea that despite being very violent individuals, hooligans are excused as they live by some sort of code of ethics in their own world and should be admired for being brave and loyal to each other. This is complete rubbish. Football hooligans are complete scum. They take football, the national sport of England and use it as an excuse to terrorise, frighten and intimidate people. They only represent a tiny percentage of football fans but give the whole game and people of this country a bad reputation. They are not brave or loyal, they are cowardly and evil. If the 'GSE' in this film truly loved their club, West Ham, why would the devote their lives to being a stain on its name. Hooligans are an embarrassment to football and to English society. Football hooligans do for the reputation of football what Hitler did to the reputation of Germans. Although this film tries/intends to show the 'gritty' side of football violence. It does nothing more than promote it as some kind of excusable activity for extreme fans of the sport. It does not show the poor innocent by-standers at football matches who have their day ruined by some idiot throwing coins/lighters/glass into the crowd. It does not show the innocent home and property owners who have to put up with graffiti and broken windows. It does not show the REAL fans of football clubs who suffer indignity and embarrassment when their teams supporters are banned from travelling to away matches or abroad to European games because the thugs among them ruin it for everyone. If you want to see a good film about football violence, watch the BBC drama 'The Firm'. | 0neg
|
This is possibly the worst film I've ever seen. The fact that it has a flimsy storyline is bad enough, that they've hooked it around the subject of football violence makes it 100 times worse.<br /><br />I had severe doubts about the premise of this film even before I started watching, but went into it open minded enough even to accept the way that the writers saw fit to introduce Elijah Wood's character Matt into the hooligan scene.<br /><br />But the film throws up inaccuracy after inaccuracy, to the point that by the middle of the film each one makes you cringe harder than the time before.<br /><br />Let's clear up a few things: Hooligans don't tend to virtually smash up their own pub before a run-of-the-mill league game; they don't set out to kill each other; they don't ONLY wear Stone Island (and others in the crowd, hooligans or not, do). They most certainly don't, when having taken exception to a new firm member, trot off to their rival firms territory for pie and mash. And I'd love to meet the hool who would go and grass on his firm's top boy to the rival firm. (Although you can scratch what I said about setting to out kill each other if one does exist).<br /><br />Don't get me wrong,I'm yet to see a film on the subject that doesn't contain some fantasy whims, but this is on a par with The Firm for cluelessness.<br /><br />I found it ironical that Wood's American nemesis is morally condemned by his character for being a cocaine user, when this is part and parcel of the British hooligan scene. The film chooses not to challenge Wood's morals and instead steers clear of any of the firm using coke.<br /><br />I could go on, but I think I've made my point.<br /><br />As for the plot, it's highly unimaginative, and I'm sure if I hadn't spent the entire film bemoaning the points, and more, made above then I would have guessed what was going on sooner than I did. And believe me, I was well in front.<br /><br />I get the distinct impression this film is aimed at men, with the hope that women will enjoy the injection of emotional issues that are raised.<br /><br />If I'm right, then the makers have failed completely. It's too unrealistic to be enjoyed by anyone who knows about the scene, and I can't believe the kind of female who looks for emotive films would give a damn about any of the characters given their violent tendencies.<br /><br />Are there any good points? Maybe the fight scenes are well choreographed and filmed, but I'm rarely impressed by slow-mo action, certainly not when it's a fight as the point is a ruck is rousing enough anyway.<br /><br />There are some funny, if unrealistic moments. Wood's trip to school did raise a smile for me. But a few mildly funny moments hardly make up for watching two hours of complete fabricated dross.<br /><br />If you're British avoid like the plague, if only not to further develop misconceptions of the scene if you're not in the know. If you're American, you may enjoy it, as it's clearly tailored to the market. But no one can deny the plot is flimsy, predictable and ultimately over the top. | 0neg
|
Where to start? OK, don't compare this film to fight club for a start - ridiculous. If it was even a patch on fight club, the violence, blood, gore etc would be much more evident and realistic. Secondly, this film is no football factory - which is so much more real (and Danny Dyer makes Nicholas Nickelby look like an embarrassment). Fair enough, the storyline is quite decent and the fight scenes are well choreographed - with a decent ending i might add. But the film on the whole is poor, seriously poor. As people have been mentioning the accents should not spoil a film - i disagree - either a simple casting error, or a lack of effort in coaching the voices caused the film to be irritating all the way through - it was obvious from scene one some American/Geordie was playing the role. Don't get me wrong, good looking guy, who looks great with a skin head - but no not a football hooligan. I could go on forever about how ridiculous the football scene was - the 'fake steward' situation. Also, when the GSE are going to play United up north, they go on the train expecting only 3 of them - doesn't make any sense - this a real organisation of gangsters and thugs, which is portrayed in the film to be some mickey mouse cult of about 5 people. In terms of accuracy - did West Ham and Milwall not play for the last couple of years they have been in the Championship together? Hmm, ten years OK. And I'm sure 'Bother' would be able to just waltz into a Milwall firm pub. Basically, a very poor film which people will like if they have little knowledge of real football, and hooliganism. If you do actually love football and are intrigued by the underworld of hooliganism,, you will simply feel as though this film has insulted your intelligence. Ross George | 0neg
|
First some background; I am English and have lived in London all my life. I have been to many games at 'The Den' and most other London club grounds. I am familiar with the type of person who gets into hooliganism and I know just how they act and how they speak. Have to say this is a bad, bad movie. I can tell you that Green Street is one of the most unrealistic movies I have ever seen. I spent most of the movie cringing with embarrassment. I felt I should write a mini review because I felt I needed to point out a few things.<br /><br />a) People just don't talk like that in London in real life; the filmmakers took the whole slang thing too far and made it sound stupid. Unfortunately hooligan types do exist, but those you see in Green Street are more like parodies. b) The actor who plays Pete Dunham (Charlie Hunnam) unfortunately sounded about as 'English' or 'Cockney' as Osama Bin Laden. He's from up north in Newcastle and I'm just amazed any of the other actors could keep straight face acting alongside him - how are we supposed to take him seriously. Why they didn't just get someone from East London to play that part is beyond me. I could have done 'a bang up job' myself, hehe. c) Mr Frodo. I mean how can I be expected to take seriously Elijah Wood kicking the ass of people twice his size and who are genuinely nasty hooligans. He'd be dead. Simple as that. Honestly (as a Brit) it was hard to watch this film. I'm pretty sure this film will bomb here in the UK. It may do a little better in the states because the Americans just wont know (or care) how inaccurate it is. <br /><br />Please my American and foreign friends, don't believe a word of this nonsense. Yes these firms do exist but it's all extremely underground and hush hush, and on a vastly smaller scale. The movie only gets a 2 from me because they actually filmed some of it in London. Usually they try to film these things in Cardiff (Wales) or something and expect us all not to notice. | 0neg
|
I'm sure to people watching this move outside of Britian this film will be an entertaining watch, but for someone from the UK it's painful in it's errors.<br /><br />Right at the start of the film Elijah Wood gets off a tube at Bank station, which has been trashed. He says to his sister, who he's meeting, "What happened here" and she replies "Oh Tottenham were in town yesterday"!!! Tottenham are in town already.. they're part of the town, they don't have to go there! And if Tottenham fans wanted to fight other fans the last place on earth they'd do it is Bank station, where there are probably more security cameras than anywhere else in the world.<br /><br />There are several other similar errors but the biggest failing for me is the actor who plays the lead hooligan. He clearly decided it wasn't worth trying to speak with an East End accent and instead opted for a Dick Van Dyke style mock-ney which made my ears bleed. It was accentuated by the fact the rest of his gang all spoke in the way you'd expect West Ham fans to speak. This error made him unbelievable in the role and really spoilt the film. | 0neg
|
Let's just say I had to suspend my disbelief less for Spiderman than I did for Hooligans. That is, to say, I have less of a problem believing Toby McGuire can stick to buildings than I do Elija Wood throwing down with toughs in Manchester. I won't get into specifics, as I don't want to write a spoiler, but the idea of grown, professional, British men getting into near death scraps every weekend is, well... funny. And this film is not. The fighting, the idea of fighting, is taken far too seriously. The gravity of the pugilism, the reverence with which the subject matter is treated becomes irritating, as it neither establishes or resolves the conflict. It seems as though the plot, with holes big enough to drive a Guiness truck through, has been slapped together with a contrived "fish out of water" theme so that viewers can gaze into Woods teary eyes as he learns how to become a man ie. hitting other young men of opposing football tastes with blunt objects and then running away as fast as he can. The characters are cartoonish, especially the Americans at Harvard. The character development and story line are telegraphed to the viewer throughout the picture. Unfortunately, the absurdity of the film doesn't reach its height until nearly the end, which by then you'll have spent nearly two hours of your life you are never getting back. Pick up "The Football Factory" or "Fight Club" instead of this corny, and disappointing dud. It doesn't waste time with empty melodrama, the tired old "Yankee in King Aurthur's Court," or weepy, parables of coming of age bullsh*t. They're just pure, dark, and clever fun; the way violence is supposed to be. | 0neg
|
This movie was probably about as silly as The Naked Gun (which was supposed to be). Case in point:<br /><br />1. In order to fake her drowning Roberts is secretly taking swimming lessons at the YWCA. After her "death" the YWCA calls her husband at work to give their condolences. HELLO how did they get his work number?<br /><br />2. Before she leaves town she drops her wedding ring in the toilet. Days or even weeks later her hubby finds it in the John. Does this mean the toilet was never flushed?<br /><br />3. No explanation is given on how she is paying for her mothers care in the retirement home (since she did it behind her RICH husbands back).<br /><br />4. Towards the end of this tiresome film Roberts suspects her husband is in the house. Instead of running for her life she runs to the kitchen instead to see if the cans are stacked neatly. | 0neg
|
Julia Roberts obviously makes a concerted effort to shake off her cotton wool Pretty Woman persona with this spurious spousal abuse thriller, but it's hard to imagine she'd end up putting in a performance as powerful and convincing (and oscar winning) as she did in Erin Brokovich based on the back of this rubbish. And make no bones about it, it's nothing more than a Julia Roberts vehicle, but unfortunately, her performance is not the most lacklustre thing about it.<br /><br />The plot has all the markings of a late night made-for-cable, and don't be under the impression that it will offer any insight into the dark world of domestic abuse because non of the characters are sketched out enough for you to really care. <br /><br />Ultimately disappointing and unsatisfying, without Roberts' name above the title, I'm sure it would have totally flopped, deservedly. | 0neg
|
"Sleeping With the Enemy" is a predictable, 'been there before' thriller that never seems to find any inspiration no matter how desperately cast and crew try. I can't believe a bunch of my friends talked me into seeing this at the movies some sixteen years ago.<br /><br />The complete lack of originality from the Ronald Bass screenplay (based upon the Nancy Price novel) does not help, nor does the stale direction of Joseph Ruben or the very average performance from Julia Roberts. The supporting cast including Patrick Bergin and Kevin Anderson do little to help.<br /><br />There really isn't a lot to say. Just give it a miss.<br /><br />Sunday, April 14, 1991 - Hoyts Cinema Centre Melbourne | 0neg
|
What a powerful start to a film when Julia Roberts character is punched in the face by her abusive and anal husband played by Patrick Bergin and I felt ready to experience a powerful film on the same level as Farrah Fawcett's The Burning Bed. Well, as the summary says I was mis-lead. This film was nothing like The Burning Bed, which had power and Farrah played the part of a woman you truly felt for, and felt her pain and her need to survive. Sleeping with the Enemy drifted off after the first act into cheap thrills with Roberts faking her death to escape her husband and goes to live in Iowa. Her husband at first believes she is dead but starts to grow suspicious that she may still be alive and sets off after her. The rest of the movie is basically a cat and mouse game with Julia getting a house in this small town in Iowa and changing her identity....there is no mention of course how she got the money for this but at this point in the film I did not care all that much. She meets a guy (Mr. Nice wimpy) and falls for him and her husband does finally catch up to her but not before he re-arranges her soup cans and straightens up the kitchen. This was I assume to provide a cheap thrill to the audience. But I did not care much if she was an abused wife because the film as I have said cheated the audience. If it had stayed the course I might have felt for her and her situation. Of course the husband is killed and all is well for little ol Ms Roberts. If only the real world was anything close to this....See the Burning Bed and you understand what a film is suppose to be like on the subject of domestic abuse. | 0neg
|
Yes there are worse movies out there. Most of them made for fun, on a shoe string budget, or as a t.v. movie of the week, but even if this was the 'movie of the week' it would rate no more than two stars. It is a poor movie about a serious subject featuring an abused woman who flees the king of the slime people in to the protective arms of the king of the wussy people. ( If this is an attempt to show that she doesn't need a man to protect her than wuss man is superfluouse to the film and ought not to be in it at all). It has no suspense, no character development, and an heroine that could be outsmarted by a rotton onion. ( I think she flushes her wedding ring on a boat with a self contained tank rather than just dropping it overboard in the ocean (where her body should be anyway) and after the husband finds her, demonstrating that she is a moron, she still makes childish assumptions that lead to almost getting her killed.) I am always amazed when I see the sort of generally high rating a movie like this gets and it makes me realize that Dr. Seuss still has a huge untapped market of people who would be challenged by his work. After I get done laughting at humanity I weep. | 0neg
|
"Serum" starts out with credits that are quite reminiscent of the "Re-animator" movies, and it owes a lot to them. The story is very similar; a mad doctor develops a serum that he believes will alleviate pain, sickness and death, but he's apparently not a big believer in clinical trials and so winds up with a brain-eating zombie on his hands in the person of his nephew. The zombie even looks like one of those from "Re-animator," and in fact some of the make-up effects in "Serum" aren't bad. Unfortunately, the script is pretty slow and unbelievable in quite a few places, resulting in a soap opera feel for most of the first 3/4 of the movie. For some reason, the director feels compelled to tell us the time of day every few minutes by flashing it in big white letters across the screen. I can't see why this was important, other than being an attempt to provide viewers with a sense of time passing; sometimes, that wouldn't be present otherwise as the plot plods along.<br /><br />There are a number of moments that just don't add up here. For instance, one victim is bludgeoned with a sledge hammer, but when we see the victim's head up close, there's no sign of that trauma. In another scene, a character runs down a fully lit hospital corridor (we can see the circles of light on the floor, in fact) with a flashlight in hand, looking for all the world like he's walking in the dark... but a moment later a second character walks down the same fully-lit corridor without one. These are just a couple of examples; moments of what look like directorial or editorial sloppiness crop up quite frequently throughout the movie.<br /><br />"Serum" is better in some ways than much of what goes straight-to-video as independent horror lately. In terms of technical items sound and photography, for example it's got a more polished look than a lot of what lands on a DVD. On the other hand, there's still a good deal of wooden acting (particularly by one of the lead characters, the mad scientist himself!) and nonsensical moments that have nothing to do with suspension of disbelief and everything to do with writing and continuity. Maybe these are things that the people involved with making this film will eventually get more experience with, though. One of the problems with low-budget independent horror lately is that the filmmakers often set out to remake more popular movies that had bigger budgets, and that almost never works out. It didn't in the case of "Serum," anyhow. | 0neg
|
Serum is about a crazy doctor that finds a serum that is supposed to cure all diseases through the power of the mind. Instead it creates some kind of monster that needs to eat human flesh and brains. The mad doc creates some zombies out of cadavers and has some problems. There is a very long lead into all the action with many scenes getting you acquainted with the characters. The mad doctor's nephew gets into a car accident and the mad doc tries to use his new serum on the boy. The results are not good. This is a class C film with OK acting but some troubles directing and some continuity errors. There isn't much zombie action in this one and the effects, while adequate, are nothing special. You can fast forward through the slow parts and get some enjoyment out of the action scenes. Watch out for some nudity and bad language. | 0neg
|
Dr. K(David H Hickey)has been trying to master a formula that would end all disease and handicaps, but needs live donors to complete his work. His doctor brother Richard(Dennis O'Neill)has a son named Eddie(Derek Philips)who is accepted to medical school. Eddie has a girlfriend named Sarah(Lizabeth Cardenas)who is pre-law and plans to attend law school herself the coming fall. She and Eddie resume their relationship when Sarah calls things off with her current boyfriend who is also shagging the lady of Walt(Bill Sebastian;Eddie's best friend who recently paid for his cheating girlfriend's boob job). Eddie accidentally gets hit by a car and appears on the throes of death when Dr. K makes a suggestion to Richard..let him "recuperate" Eddie using his secret, illegal methods. When Dr. K applies his serum to Eddie horrifying results occur. Eddie's face bulges massive warts while he has also acquired a taste for human flesh. Many will die so that Eddie can feed this uncontrollable appetite he can't quench. Soon he may even pose a threat to his father and girlfriend..Eddie Monster must be stopped.<br /><br />Typically awful direct-to-video horror flick suffers from a severe lack of budget, acting, and overall talent. The premise, which seems like an interesting fright-fest, fails to deliver even as a zombie flick. The gore is limited with a few munching scenes but most of the violence occurs off-camera. The use of time to move the story along can really get annoying. | 0neg
|
Serum starts as Eddie (Derek Phillips) is delighted to learn he has been accepted into medical school to carry on the family tradition of becoming an MD like his father Richard (Dennis O'Neill) & his uncle Eddie (David H. Hickey), however his joy could be short lived as Eddie is involved in an accident & is run over by a car. Taken to the nearest hospital it doesn't look good for poor Eddie so his uncle Eddie convinces his brother Richard to let him save Eddie with the serum he has developed, a serum which will give the recipient the power to self heal any sort of wound or illness. Desperate for his boy to live Richard agrees but the procedure has unwanted side effects like turning Eddie into a brain eating zombie which is just not a good thing...<br /><br />Executive produced, written & directed by Steve Franke I'll be perfectly frank myself & say Serum is awful, Serum is one of those no budget horror films which tries to rip-off other any number of other's & ends up being slightly more fun than having you fingernails pulled out with pliers. The script is terrible, it has the whole Re-Animator (1985) feel to it with mad scientists wielding huge syringes trying to eradicate death but it's so boring it's untrue, the first forty minutes is nothing more than a really dull soap opera that amounts to nothing expect to pad the running time out with Eddie arriving home after spending some time away & finding his ex-girlfriend has hooked up with someone else, arguments with his step-mom, getting drunk with his mate & generally boring the audience stiff. So, once the tedium of the first forty minutes is over & if your still watching it it takes another twenty minutes to get Eddie re-animated & then he kills a couple of people, police catch up with him & shoot him, the end. Thank god. Serum is devoid of any of the characteristic's that one would associate with a good film, the character's suck, the dialogue is poor, it takes itself far too seriously, it's dull, it's slow, it's forgettable & considering it's meant to be a horror film there's an alarming lack of blood, gore or horror. Not recommended, did I mention Serum was boring? I thought so.<br /><br />Director Franke does nothing to liven this thing up, although competent there's no style here at all. The gore levels are none existent, there's a bit of splashed blood, a bitten neck, a couple of scars on a dead woman's face, a couple of scenes where a needle pierces skin & that's it. Don't expect a Re-Animator in the gore department because if you do your going to be sorely disappointed, much like I was in fact. Filmed in what looks like one house, one restaurant & a lab the film has no variety either & just looks cheap throughout. There's a couple of scenes of nudity but that's nowhere near enough to save it.<br /><br />Technically the film isn't too bad, at least it looks like proper cameras were used, I can't really comment on the special effects because there aren't any but generally speaking Serum looks reasonably professional. Apparently shot in Texas, or should that read it should have literally been shot in Texas? The acting sucks although again I think they were proper actor's rather than friends or family of the director.<br /><br />Serum is a terrible film, it's dull, slow, boring, has no gore & feels like a horrible soap opera for the first forty minutes. I don't understand why anyone would feel the need to watch this when they can watch Re-Animator or one of it's sequels again instead, seriously I recommend you give Serum a miss. There I've just saved you from wasting 90 minutes of your life, you can thank me later. | 0neg
|
I don't'know... maybe it's because I'm Brazilian but all that stuff was too much. Too much love for the music, too much parties, too much contrast between the nice lives of the main characters (come on, it's not so sad) and the aspect of the city shown by the director. Everything looks too fake to me: the families, the relationships, the music, the "happiness". It simply sells a little taste of fake latinamerican culture. I must be honest: it did seduce me a little, but who would not be seduced by that fake lives made of nice music, sex and parties? I'm not that stupid: what kind of world is this one in which people do not suffer of diarrhea, profound sadness and STDs? I liked the scene with Caridad's mother phone call and the discussion about the contract with all the musicians and the Spanish people. | 0neg
|
"Triumph of Love" is proof that not every Comédie-Française author who uses cross-dressing disguised courtship like Shakespeare is worth seeing. <br /><br />Or maybe something was lost in the translation of this adaptation of Marivaux, a Commedia Dell Arte-inspired playwright of whom Brittannica says: "His nuanced feeling and clever wordplay became known as marivaudage." <br /><br />While Mira Sorvino has fun dangling three mixed-up romances, her pants role wasn't even up to Cherubino in "Marriage of Figaro."<br /><br />The herky-jerky editing is annoying and just seems to indicate that a lot of takes were needed for each long speech.<br /><br />Best was Fiona Shaw as the fooled spinster, as well as the costumes.<br /><br />The glimpses of audience we see and the closing curtain call to wink that this is all artifice doesn't really help.<br /><br />(originally written 5/29/2002) | 0neg
|
Let me be clear. I've used IMDb for years. But only today I went through the trouble of registering on the site, just so I could give this movie the lowest possible rating. I've seen hundreds of films, some of them bad, a few awful. Never, though, have i seen such a contrast of pretense and incompetence, of high intentions and failure.<br /><br />Mira Sorvino is horribly cast as the princess, but entirely unbelievable as Phocion, a young boy. Fiona Shaw is always an entertaining character, but the dialogue in the film is much worse, even, than in the insipid French play that is the source (Marivaux never reached Hollywood until now, and we should keep it that way).<br /><br />To illustrate, for example, that Leontine is a brilliant, passionate philosopher and scientist, she is shown frantically pouring chemicals from beaker to beaker, shouting out names of famous scientists. And the romance between Agis and the princess is played even sillier. For this, the pair should receive a joint 'Clair Danes' award, which in a just world would be awarded for gratuitously anachronistic and uninspired re-interpretation of interesting teens from literature as brats of the 1990's (see Miss Danes in Les Miserables).<br /><br />Aside from the atrocious plot and dialogue, there are some attempts to introduce artistic tropes into the filming. For example, there are moments when a handful of spectators are faded in and out of view of the action, sitting in chairs, watching the principal characters. The Director wants us to realize she's adapted a play. I get it. But it doesn't happen at all until far into the film. At that point, seeing a crowd of people sitting in chairs for a moment, then disappearing, is creepy and distracting. They're like some sort of un-scary zombie crowd, appearing through the mists, filling us with dread. When you see the horrible frolic and song that ends this movie, you'll want to rouse your own crowd of zombies and kill them all for the grave injustise of poisoning your mind for 112 minutes.<br /><br />-Matthew McGuire | 0neg
|
Yikes. This is pretty bad. The play isn't great to begin with, and the decision to transfer it to film does it no favours - especially as Peploe doesn't decide how she wants to treat the material's theatrical origins (we get occasional glances of an observing theatre audience etc.) and has decided to go with a jumpy editing style that is intended to keep reminding you that you're watching a film, whereas in fact it only serves to remind you that you are watching a very poor film by a director who is overwhelmed by her material. Mira Sorvino's central performance is breath-takingly poor: stage-y and plummy, it's as if she's playing the part via Helena Bonham-Carter's Merchant Ivory oeuvre. Only Fiona Shaw delivers a performance of note - and it may be that her theatrical pedigree means that she is best able to handle the material - but it's hard to watch a film for one performance alone, even if that performance is as light, truthful and entire as Shaw's. Ben Kingsley turns in an average and disengaged turn, and Diana Rigg's daughter, Rachel Stirling plays her supporting role as just that. Sadly, none of Bertolucci's magic has rubbed off on his wife if this film is to be the evidence. | 0neg
|
I borrowed this movie from library think it might be delightful. How wrong am I!<br /><br />It is such a bad movie that I have to write something about it. Mira Sorvino is SO bad in the movie, it is very painful to watch the scene with her. She is a pretty girl, but in this movie, She is not seductive at all, but I will have to witness her awkward attempt to seduce almost all the other major characters. It is so ridiculous.<br /><br />And the dialog of the film is so pretentious, and lack the humorous fact that make then acceptable.<br /><br />Totally failure. | 0neg
|
"The Triumph of Love" doesn't triumph over anything. It is a plodding, ponderous, 4 hours of torture. Actually it's a little less than 2 hours long, it just seemed much longer. It pains me to even think about the amateurish performances of such fine actors as Ben Kingsley and Fiona Shaw. The supporting players are not quite as awful. Maybe they were trying to be so over the top, so as to be clownish, but, if so, I didn't see it that way. Mira Sorvino doesn't make an impression one way or the other. She(he)'s just there. My guess is, the play of the same name, written by Marivaux some 270 or so years ago, is much better. It couldn't be any worse. Clare Peploe, the writer and director of this movie, was inspired by a recent production of the play. I don't know what she was thinking when she created this bomb. <br /><br />Maybe it all got lost in the translation. | 0neg
|
I gave this movie a rating of 1 (Awful). The only reason that it should even get a 1 instead of a big -0- is Ben Kingsley, who always shines not matter what terrible material is thrown his way.<br /><br />Mira Sorvino is so out of her element here that as a viewer one simply can't get over the fact that she is even in such a piece.<br /><br />Stupid, stupid story and horrible production. Do NOT waste your video rental $. | 0neg
|
Gods, I haven't watched a movie this awful in a long while. Maybe not since 'The New Guy' or various Freddie Prinze Jr. movies. Yes, it is that astoundingly awful. Mira Sorvino's blank and wooden acting surely must've been inspired by Freddie. The movie staging was awkward (like a play, rather, and that feeling of confinement does NOT work well on film). The actors had no idea what they were doing, especially Sorvino. Her accent was awful and her sex appeal non-existent here so it was painful to see her 'seducing' other characters and they 'falling' for it. And what was with the occaisional shots of a live audience in lawn chairs? Nonsensical! I had to turn the dvd player off, it would have been self-inflicted pain to finish this film. | 0neg
|
I rented this movie, thinking it looked like a wonderfully delightful historical piece. What I got was a piece of pure garbage. This movie was confusing in most spots, choppy in almost every spot and dreadful in all spots. Mira Sorvino's portrayal of a queen playing a young male scholar was depressing at best. Ben Kingsley should have been stripped of his knighthood for even considering this film as one of his projects. Fiona Shaw should definitely stick to playing Petunia Dursley; at least the Harry Potter movies are more entertaining than this thing they call a play within a movie.<br /><br />The cinematography looks like some college kid took a class in Cinematography 101 and failed miserably. Almost every scene in the movie is chopped up for some sort of effect; the end result of course being the cheesiest bit of editing I've ever seen. Jay Rodan was almost good as Agis; too bad he had such a bad script to work with. Rachael Stirling gives her best effort as the almost gullible lady in waiting. In the end, I really wish Blockbuster Video gave refunds. I'm so glad I didn't spend 10 bucks watching this fiasco in the theater. If they've been performing this Marivaux play since the 18th century, it makes me wonder how many people over the ages have had their best naps during this work. If I had been there, they wouldn't have hear the play over the snoring. Thank goodness for the modern convenience of DVD players; you can skip past the boring or awful scenes. Guess that means I only watched the beginning and the end! | 0neg
|
I really wanted to like this movie a lot more than I did. That's because I love wacky foreign comedies--particularly the strange ones that catch you completely by surprise. However, although this one frequently caught me by surprise, these were almost never pleasant surprises. It reminded me of South Park in that nearly EVERY social norm was violated until the only ones left to broach were too sick to be funny. For example, after exploring adultery, drug abuse (of nearly every sort--ranging from pot, heroin, speed to glue sniffing), prostitution, S&M, suicide, murder, etc., the movie got to the hilarious(?) topic of pedophilia. Mom encouraged her one son (who looked about 12 years-old) to sleep with neighboring men. In fact, at one point in the movie she gives this boy to the dentist in lieu of payment for dental work! Funny?! You've got to be kidding. This movie just goes too far and delves into the "black hole of comedy". What should they make fun of next, cancer or rectal tumors? | 0neg
|
Tatie Danielle is all about a ghastly old hag who torments her loving and oblivious family out of sheer spite. There's a bit of subtext that might be about France's colonial past but it's mostly just Danielle doing the sorts of things (like deliberately abandoning a small child in a park) that would soon have a man picking up his teeth with broken fingers. Sadly, that doesn't happen here. It looks good and the acting is fine and there's nothing really wrong with the concept but it's just so SMUG. God, does this movie love itself. Pity it isn't nearly as clever or as funny as it thinks it is. The only impetus in the show - sorry, movie - comes from Danielle getting nastier and nastier, and the only surprise comes from watching the increasingly improbable ways she does this. That's right: just like in a sitcom, which is what this is, with the added 'bonus' of delusions of grandeur and a 110-minute running time. | 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.