text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
This agonizing comedy-drama got surprisingly sterling reviews upon its release in 1979. I remember opening the movie-section of the L.A. Times and looking at a 2-page advertisement for "Chapter Two" filled with glowing captions like: "Better than 'The Goodbye Girl'!" and "Neil Simon does it again!" What does Neil Simon do? He takes an autobiographical situation (remarrying too soon after the death of a beloved spouse) and makes it rusty, unpleasant and--worst of all--unfunny. James Caan plays Neil--er..that is, George--a writer who can't seem to get back into life after losing his wife; enter spirited Marsha Mason (real-life Mrs. Simon...soon to be ex-Mrs. Simon) who attempts to love George despite his moods and general melancholy. Mason is very appealing here and might've saved the day were it not for Caan's indifference (not to mention a sub-plot concerning painfully-thin, blonde Valerie Harper which brings the proceedings to a screeching halt). I liked Mason's outburst at the end ("I am wonderful! I am NUTS about me!"), but I saw no happy ending for these two people...and time proved me right. ** from **** | 0neg
|
Thanks to a dull, dimensionless screenplay by Neil Simon, and lackluster direction from Robert Moore, Chapter Two becomes a shrill showcase for Marsha Mason who received her third of four Oscar nods for Chapter Two giving the same performance here that she gave in Cinnderella Liberty(73), The Goodbye Girl(77), Audrey Rose(78) and Only When I Laugh(81);only this time she doesn't have a child to drag around. Chapter Two is the third and last feature film for Moore having previously directed Neil Simon's The Cheap Detective(78) and Murder By Death(76). Caan is miscast, the characters are mono-dimensional, the dialog is overly analytical, and there's virtually no establishing detail. The first half is a less-than-captivating, meet cute, coy romance between a blinkered Caan and a chipper Mason, and the dreary second half makes you long for the first half. The NYC locations as well as Joe Bologna, and a painfully thin Valerie Harper are irrelevant, but at least they provide some welcome distraction. And last and least, there's an awful song played during the credits. | 0neg
|
What a piece of stupid tripe.<br /><br />I won't even waste time evaluating any of the points of this show. It's not worth the time. The one comment I will make is - why get such a DUMB, inarticulate doofus to be the star?!?<br /><br />There aren't many more dismal testimonials to the deteriorating mental condition of the networks than the fact that FOX has stated it will NOT bring back John Doe (a decent series) but WILL bring back brain-dead drivel like Joe Millionaire for yet another round of killing the brain cells of the american public.<br /><br />FOX has lost it, IMHO. | 0neg
|
You loose 100 IQ points just for tuning in. This show has to be awful, I refuse to tune in from just what I've seen in commercials. Where did they dig this guy up at anyway? Also, what do they intend to do next season? The secret is out. Everyone already knows the set up? Are they going to look for people who has been living under a rock to star in next season? Where are they going to dig up more stupid women? No wonder America is a big joke to outsider's,look what you are watching!! | 0neg
|
Final Score...who cares - it's a reality show. It has no love for it's audience, it panders to lazy TV viewers, puts nothing in and gets nothing out.<br /><br />"Joe Millionaire", the most blatantly phony reality show of them all, is a television disaster of epic proportions. It's a watershed, rock bottom moment, not only for Fox, but for the American viewing public who actually watch, like and talked about this crap the next day. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Because as much as Fox promotes this junk it won't make any money unless it's watch by people (and boy was it, the finale got nearly Super Bowl numbers!?). It doesn't bother you people that there are many quality shows written, directed, acted and generally have effort put into them that are being cancelled while you sit back and lap up this effortless, cold game show?<br /><br />I used to be a staunch supporter of Fox. It's those of us like me who like and seek out quality TV that helped build Fox back in the days of Married...with Children and The Simpsons. Conveniently enough, now neither of those shows would make it 6 weeks with the current management. The Gail Berman "reign of terror" as it's often called. The network has waged war on scripted TV AND, strangely enough, it's fans. The very people who helped build them in the beginning. Now, not only do we have to fight for good shows, but we have to fight against their own network. It boggles the mind. Nothing Fox, has done in the past 3 years makes any sense. From canceling hits like "Titus", "Futurama" and "John Doe" (NBC can renew "Boomtown", but Fox can't lift it's pitiful head to give the only decent show they had this season another shot?). And the reason they can do all this: the success of junk like "Joe Millionaire". They can now say "We don't need you TV fans, we have reality shows". They apparently seem to have no idea that the big audience the draw with this junk is fickle and WILL abandon them the second the next fad comes along. To alienate their base like this will eventually kill the network the way it has set back ABC.<br /><br />The show itself is a joke. Here we have a premise, in the now classic Fox gimmick, that promises us something different and edgy, but then delivers something not in any way different from "The Bachelor" or anything on the big 3. Fox has gone mainstream. The finale and "twist" (quote/unquote) showed they have no ideas up their sleeve. Now we know that all these shows, no matter how different they look, will all end up the same cornball, fairy tale ending. We got to see a bunch of lame aspiring actors that the network picked out of millions of head-shots to fit their demographics parade around like high school bimbos pretending they liked this Evan Marriott because...well because it was a competition and that's what you're supposed to do. Marriott himself is like a hideously disfigured Chro-magnum man who struggles to put together the simplest sentences. But, how can the women (all average to ugly looking by the way - an important minus is a guilty pleasure show like this) not fall for "Joe" with such charming lines like "Look, you're not stupid".<br /><br />I used to think that people who watched these reality/dating/game shows were just to lazy to change the channel, but after "Joe Millionaire" I think they must be genuinely mentally deficient. Come on people, have a little more pride in yourselves. Demand a little bit more from your entertainment then THIS.<br /><br />Boycott FOX. | 0neg
|
<br /><br />I watched this movie just a little while ago and I found that this movie was terrible! It moved very slowly and was hardly entertaining!<br /><br />Sorry for all those that liked it.... this is only my opinion! | 0neg
|
A film about the Harlem Renaissance and one author in particular. It contrasts it with a modern day story about a young, gay, black artist.<br /><br />If that sounds vague it's because the movie itself is. It's well-directed, fairly well-written and (for the most part) well-acted. Also the scenes in the past are shot in moody black & white. Also this is one of the few film dealing with gay men that does NOT shy away from sex scenes (not that explicit and no frontal). Still, I mostly hated this.<br /><br />The film meanders all over the place, is full of unlikable characters (including the main protagonist) and (this is the killer) moves at a snails pace. Three times I considered leaving the theatre because I was so utterly bored. But the director WAS there so I stayed. <br /><br />His talk afterwords shows this was a labor of love and took 6 years to complete. I really wish I could like this more (there are VERY few films dealing honestly with gay blacks) but I can't. Unless you're very interested in the Harlem Renaissance there's no reason to see this. | 0neg
|
Uh oh! Another gay film. This time it's showing the black side. Bet your last dollar it's gonna have an unhappy ending! But WHY? With only less than a half dozen exceptions, ALL gay films have to end in death or an "addio" finale. It's like all the European Film Noir releases in the 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's. The lead...male or female must die or ride off alone into oblivion. Why in God's name must writers, directors, and producers have the audience leave the theatre feeling depressed? After all, it's supposed to be gay...not glum. Maybe the category should be changed to a 'glum' film. A large percentage of gay relationships DO last and the couples DO ride off together into the sunset! No matter who writes or produces, he only shows the down side of gay life and gives the incorrect impression of gay lifestyle. This movie just proves my point. If you rent the DVD, take an antidepressant, for here comes another 'gay' film! This is WRONG! | 0neg
|
Another of many nearly forgotten movies cranked out by Poverty Row in the 1930's, resurrected by the magic of DVD.<br /><br />Starring stock Universal player Lionel Atwill (often a supporting actor in numerous Frankenstein movies) as a pair of twins involved in a murder racket. One kills the victims (stockbrokers involved in a scam) and asks witnesses for the exact time, while the other is deaf and is proved "innocent" because he could not have spoken to witnesses.<br /><br />Of course, where it falls apart is if it was a congenital deafness, wouldn't they both be deaf? Oh, well.<br /><br />Atwill does a pretty good job here, faking being deaf and mute. Unfortunately, no one else here can really act worth a darn. | 0neg
|
This one is a real bomb. We are supposed to believe that Merle Oberon is the sequestered daughter of an ambitious politician who must prove to the Tom DeLay of the 1930s that he is worth supporting as a presidential candidate. Poor Merle can't go anywhere, but is surrounded by politicians and their quacking, quaking wives and supported only by kindly uncle Harry Davenport. She joins her two maids on a blind date and Gary Cooper happens to show up. Some shots of rodeo might have enlivened things, a la "Misfits," but no such luck with this one. Gary later breaks in to a formal dinner, at which Merle is presiding, and, though invited to sit down and join the group, reads them a lecture on their snobbery. Where did this diffident cowboy's sudden eloquence come from? The most excruciating scene in the film is a phantom party that Gary holds in his unfinished house for his absent wife, Merle. Will it never end? One to avoid. | 0neg
|
The subject is certainly compelling: a group of people take their love of gaming one step further by creating a fake medieval world full of warriors, kings, princes and castles. Wargaming is an interesting phenomena that delves into our collective need to "escape" from reality and the sometimes mundaneness of our existence -- something almost everyone can relate to. The characters are the predictable mix of Lord of the Rings nerds and Star Trek enthusiasts. That's enough to get most people to watch. However, very quickly the film turns into an insider's view of wargaming with an almost stereotypical thumbing of the nose to viewers who "don't get it". The filmmakers seem to take the subject of wargaming, and this particular one, waaaaay too seriously rather than once in awhile recognizing the humor and fun in making a film about adults drssing up in medieval gear and pounding each other with foam swords. It's pretty hard for anyone who doesn't sit on their computer for 7-10 hours a day playing games or desiging the latest star destroyer to understand what the characters are talking about and why we should even care. However, the filmmakers themselves seem not to care choosing to focus solely on the subject of the game itself rather than building a strong narrative with a clear story that anyone can understand. Moreover, the characters themselves are not that compelling and you quickly become bored of them: a big no-no when you're trying to keep people's attention for 90 minutes. | 0neg
|
"Everything a great documentary could be"?? Yeah, if one is deaf, dumb, and blind. Everything but meaning, wit, visual style, and interesting subject matter. Aside from that. . .<br /><br />Seriously, volken. This is a movie that is completely inauthentic. An adventure doc with no adventure, a war doc with no feeling for war, a campy send-up with no trace of wit. It means nothing, feels like nothing, and carries the implicit message that absolutely nothing matters. No wonder it has so many IMDb fans! Of course, going in you know a movie starring the great Skip Lipman will have no culture, no intelligence, no wit (other than a corrosive adolescent jokiness), and no recognizable human emotion just adrenaline. "Darkon" isn't a movie -- it's a panic attack! Avoid. There too many real documentaries and too little time in life to waste it on toilet build-up such as "Darkon". | 0neg
|
As a "lapsed Catholic" who had 11 years of Catholic school, but hasn't been to Mass in 35 years except for weddings and funerals, I thought I'd get a kick out of this. And I did . . . for the first two-thirds of the movie. It was all the standard stuff -- strict parochial school teachings, repressed sexuality, etc. But then, suddenly, the movie turned mean. REALLY mean. Now mind you, I saw this before the pedophilia scandals hit . . . and maybe I wouldn't have been quite so offended at such nasty, hateful digs at the Catholic Church if I'd known about those abominations (such a Catholic term!) and coverups.<br /><br />It's been a few years since I rented the video, and I won't go back to rent it again with a new perspective. It just left such a dirty, nasty, ugly taste in my mouth . . . I wonder what experience all the actors had with the Church, because either they *really* hate it, or they whored themselves for the paycheck. It's an incredibly anti-Catholic movie, offensive to anyone who has a glimmer of a gleam of respect for Catholic education. Which I still do because there were no better teachers back in the '50s. Whatever else those nuns did, they forced me to learn how to read and write the English language. They made us memorize. (How many kids today can do simple arithmetic in their heads?) Truth is, there's nothing more essential for success in America. Can ya read? Can ya add/subtract/multiply/divide? Great. You can get any advanced degree you want. And the discipline of Catholic education will stand you in good stead, not just as you continue your studies, but also for the rest of your life, no matter what you think of the Catholic "mythology" we all had to learn.<br /><br />Such a great cast, such a lousy, rotten script. I really feel bad (and no, it's not "badly" -- trust me, the nuns taught me better) for the writer and director.<br /><br />I thought I had mixed emotions about Catholic school. But the participants in this project must've been those bad (ie.e, stupid) kids who sat in the back of the room, if they were willingly involved in making this movie. | 0neg
|
This is a film that takes some digesting. On the one hand, we are offered a tough outward shell, a story that does not only derive the Catholic Church, but does so foolishly, and uninformed. On an inner layer, we are offered a story of orthodoxy over orthopraxis, and what happens when people follow blindly a faith that they must not understand.<br /><br />At first glance, it appeared this was supposed to be a comedy. If so, then Mr. Durang needs to open a dictionary, because he clearly does not know the meaning of the word. The jokes are pale; the humor is awkward and poorly delivered. In particular, Ms. Keaton's performance is flighty and over the top, well below the quality of her Annie Hall and Sleeper days. Jennifer Tilly is again the model of stridence, with her hi-pitched voice and whining style. All of this could be forgiven if it weren't for the last 20 minutes of this movie, that evidently was a controversial play made in 1981.<br /><br />***Careful, spoilers ahead***<br /><br />It all starts with the appearance of four former students of Sister Mary Ignatius (Ignatius, by the way, is a male name, and a nun would not adopt it after her vows under any circumstance simply due to that fact, just to show you how much tireless research went into the project to begin with.) When they all admit that they don't live up to the church's teachings, the sister proceeds to become irrational and abuse them in a manner the audience is to believe she did way back when in the corny, all-too-cliché sepia-tone flashbacks. When one of them admits to having two abortions, the nun becomes even more abusive, until the pupil pulls out a gun. After wrestling it away from her, the nun kills the pupil, presumably in self-defense. She then goes on a screaming rampage, killing a gay former student because of his sins. The last shot is of the dead female pupil lying in a Christ-like pose as a shadow of a cross hangs over her. Can you say `heavy handed?' I knew you could!<br /><br />I know there have been abusive nuns in the past, and I know many people have been emotionally harmed as a result, but this imagery is fed down our throats in almost every other shot in this train wreck of a movie. I have heard from the writer and the director that this is a film about hysteria and why one should not follow the orthodoxy so religiously, no pun intended. This explanation is hard to swallow, though, simply because we are never given an authoritative viewpoint that is not biased against the catholic faith in one way or another. This film is simply anti-Catholic tripe, which in the name of fairness and equality, is mean spirited and hateful.<br /><br />This is a film I would recommend for a catholic, namely to awaken him or her to the realities of what cynicism and ignorance they face today. If it were `Rabbi Ray explains it all' or `Imam Muhammad explains it all', there would be rioting in the streets and Showtime would lose all of its subscription. But, sadly, because this is a film that strikes out against what is perceived to be the majority, it is accepted and even applauded by those who share the same spiteful point of view.<br /><br />I certainly hope every member of that cast was a practicing catholic, so it wasn't just ignorance that brought them to make this film.<br /><br />I give it 1.5 stars out of 5, not because of its offensive nature, but because it was poorly written, poorly directed and just a bad movie in general. Don't even waste your time. | 0neg
|
I am a Catholic taught in parochial elementary schools by nuns, taught by Jesuit priests in high school & college. I am still a practicing Catholic but would not be considered a "good Catholic" in the church's eyes because I don't believe certain things or act certain ways just because the church tells me to.<br /><br />So back to the movie...its bad because two people are killed by this nun who is supposed to be a satire as the embodiment of a female religious figurehead. There is no comedy in that and the satire is not done well by the over acting of Diane Keaton. I never saw the play but if it was very different from this movies then it may be good.<br /><br />At first I thought the gun might be a fake and the first shooting all a plan by the female lead of the four former students as an attempt to demonstrate Sister Mary's emotional and intellectual bigotry of faith. But it turns out the bullets were real and the story has tragedy...the tragedy of loss of life (besides the two former students...the lives of the aborted babies, the life of the student's mom), the tragedy of dogmatic authority over love of people, the tragedy of organized religion replacing true faith in God. This is what is wrong with today's Islam, and yesterday's Judaism and Christianity. | 0neg
|
A less-than-subtle poke at the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church is given a darker shade of death near the end of the show. Throughout the show, dark humour plays a medium through which several commonly heard rhetoric questions are asked, especially "If God is so good, why does he allow evil to exist in the world?"<br /><br />Diane Keaton is excellent in her role as an exaggerated version (though some might disagree) of they stereotyped religious teacher who spouts the "company line" and condemns half the world to burn in Hell. To celebrate her school's 25th anniversary, she invites her first students to return and perform their Christmas pageant.<br /><br />However, when the quartet "update" their play to parody Sister Mary's "fallacious" teachings, the nun is pushed over the edge, sending the story spiralling into a chain of unhappy events. The ending finally leaves the audience with a sick feeling in their hearts.<br /><br />Not recommended. Go watch the play instead. | 0neg
|
I have always said that some plays by their very nature just can't be translated to film, and this one is a prime example.<br /><br />As a play, this is a very funny farcical satire of the Catholic church, with a razor wit and a central character who is so shockingly unreal we have to root for her even when she starts murdering her parishioners (one of whom made the fatal mistake of admitting he had not sinned since his last confession, so she feels she is sending him straight to heaven).<br /><br />That's just one example of how far outside of reality the play goes, and in the make believe world of the theater, it works. However, that kind of heightened reality rarely works on film, and it certainly doesn't here.<br /><br />Director Marshall Brickman has assembled a fine cast who do great work, but by presenting all this absurdity in a realistic fashion the comedy becomes tragedy and you are left with an empty feeling in the pit of your stomach.<br /><br />Seek out a production of the stage play instead, you won't be disappointed. | 0neg
|
Christopher Durang must have been taught by a memorably awful nun, because he just can't let go of the concept. The play, "Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You," was presented -- at least in Hollywood -- in precisely the same tone as Diane Keaton's lecture scenes here. Sister Mary was an exaggeration, a lampoon, a bitter satire of a serenely confident, doctrinaire and highly judgmental nun -- and as played by Lynn Redgrave, she was hilarious. But the movie insists that we take this exaggeration absolutely seriously -- while, as mentioned, maintaining the same tone in the "explains it all" scenes. The two approaches clash headlong and in the last twenty minutes, the movie goes off the track, plunges into the gorge, and explodes. There are no survivors. It could have worked, if the tone of the scenes with the four former students, and their encounter with Sister Mary, been pitched the same as the Sister Mary scenes. Or if the Sister Mary scenes been presented more realistically. This way simply doesn't work at all. | 0neg
|
Broad enough for you? Wait till you see this heavy handed<br /><br />adaption of a little collegiate one act. What is shocking and wild in<br /><br />college rarely holds up over time, and this is proof. To take on the<br /><br />Catholic Church with broadside humor just isn't shocking or<br /><br />interesting or funny, it's kind of boring. The performers are all<br /><br />game, giving all they've got, but it's basically a play that doesn't<br /><br />open up to film well. Not a lot of fun. | 0neg
|
I would have given it a one instead of a two, but I suppose it COULD have been worse. I guess the acting isn't all that bad, but the plot lacks anything even remotely close to interesting. It is a terrible movie!! TERRIBLE! Complete waste of time! I strongly suggest you do not watch this movie.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | 0neg
|
Michael Rooker is a decent actor, but he has no business being the lead except in a low budget movie. He really does not have much charisma. Ryo Ishibashi has a lot more screen presence, and sadly he is not really the main character. Most of the screen time goes to the brick-faced Rooker.<br /><br />Danielle Harris (from the Halloween 4 and 5 movies) plays his daughter, and she is cute and entertaining but she is written as not being too smart and one of her dumb mistakes gets one of the main characters killed. Comedians Fred Willard, Bobcat Goldthwait, and Stephen Furst are here in interesting roles. Just watching what happens to these characters is priceless. <br /><br />Vincent Schiavelli plays the Consigliare to the local Mafia Godfather, and it is hard to tell whether or not he is working the movie as a comedy. Tim Thomerson is also in this movie. He seems to be in every extremely low budget direct-to-video action movie. Thomerson is also in some low-budget comedies. Seeing so many comedians and comic actors in this film made it feel like a spoof. Is it a parody of a Yakuza movie? It is hard to tell at some points. There is certainly very little Yakuza action. <br /><br />The supporting cast of Thugs and Goons is menacing and well cast. Some of these kinds of movies have Thugs that look like they work at the local Comic Book Store or as stock boys at Piggly-Wiggly. Overall this movie is very uneven. At some points it seems like a comedy or a parody. Then at other points it works as a good action movie. Then it sputters to an end. Without the contributions of Danielle Harris and Ryo Ishibashi this movie would rate a Zero in my humble opinion. | 0neg
|
Typical formula action film: a good cop gets entangled in a mess of crooked cops and Japanese gangsters.<br /><br />The okay result has decent performances, a few fleeting snicker-inducing moments, and some fair action sequences--plus a chance to check out the gorgeous Danielle Harris--who makes the most of her perpetual typecasting as a rebellious teen daughter.<br /><br />** out of ****. | 0neg
|
Strictly a routine, by-the-numbers western (directed by genre-mainstay Andrew V. McLaglen, so is that any wonder?). Army colonel Brian Keith spars with smarmy bandit Dean Martin, who has just kidnapped the colonel's wife (Honor Blackman, who never found her niche after playing Pussy Galore in "Goldfinger"). Fist-fights, shoot-outs, stagecoach robberies and Denver Pyle in a supporting role...in other words, absolutely nothing new or original. Talking in a low monotone throughout, Keith gets to dally with a prostitute (something of a shock after his run on TV's "Family Affair"), but otherwise this low-rent material wastes Keith's amiable talents. It's also bad news for Dino, who doesn't seem to notice or care. Hack direction, poor writing and several unfunny attempts at lowball humor. * from **** | 0neg
|
A reporter, Craig Milford, who works for The James Keller Public Telecommunication Center, has an interview with a German professor of a Floridian university, who made an unknown creature based upon some substance of meteor(s). But then a man named Anderson, who is trying to control the whole planet with the creature, and his man kill the professor and his assistants and plunder the creature. So Craig and his new female psychic partner, Joanna Fitzgerald, who can communicate not only with human being but also with alien friend(s) of the creature, begin to find the creature and try to send it to an alien spaceship... This film has some great casts and staffs. For instance, it has the actor, David Warbeck of THE BEYOND, the actress, Laura Trotter of NIGHTMARE CITY, the special visual effects creator, Sergio Stivaletti of Dario Argento's masterpieces, and the director (and also the story- writer), Alberto De Martino of THE MAN WITH ICY EYES and THE KILLER IS ON THE PHONE. And these talented people make an incredibly bad film, named, nothing but this MIAMI GOLEM which is essentially a confusedly combined film of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND with E.T.THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL. And this not-only-confused-but-also-crammed film has something worth; genetic engineering with psychical research. Consequently the film has at least one scientific and/or technical flaw; genetic engineering and psychical research are never compatible. (Strangely enough, regarding this strangely childish combination of genetic engineering and psychical research, the leading character, Craig, himself says THERE MUST BE A BETTER EXPLANATION to the short-haired psychic, Joanna. But, after all, the whole story of the film doesn't and can't present any kind of BETTER EXPLANATION.) In addition, this film has something more laughable; its problematic music. What the composer, who is credited as Robert Marry, provides is nothing but the strangely insistent BEVERLY-HILLS-COP-tasted music. I don't want to say this Italianised theme of BEVERLY HILLS COP per se is particularly bad music, but I have to say it seems to be manifestly clear the music does not have the fitness for this film per se at all. Indeed just who can think BEVERLY HILLS COP has the compatibility with genetic engineering and/or psychical research? | 0neg
|
The basic premise of "Miami Golem" most definitely deserves a spot in the top, say, fifty of most demented cinematic plots ever scripted down! I know top 50 doesn't sound too impressive, but I've seen a lot of really weird films with lunatic plots. I was prepared from something convoluted, because the film was directed and co-written by Alberto De Martino, who was one of Italy's most ambitious and creative but sadly underrated film makers. De Martino steals multiple ideas from successful blockbusters, like most Italian directors did around that time, but he always adds a lot of stuff to make it even more complex, confusing and overwhelming. Not all of De Martino's films are worthwhile, but some of them are extremely underrated, like "A Special Magnum for Tony Saitta", "Holocaust 2000" and "Formula for a Murder". The concept of "Miami Golem" contains elements from numerous great Sci-Fi and adventure flicks (like "Alien", "Starman" , "Close encounters of the Third Kind", "ET",
) but I wouldn't exactly call it a rip-off. The only thing that is really shamelessly stolen from another film is the opening synthesizer theme song that sounds almost identical to Harold Faltermeyer's Axel F. from "Beverly Hills Cop". The rest of the film is an amusing hodgepodge of fantasy, Sci-Fi, action, horror and superhero-movie gimmicks. It certainly doesn't always make sense (most of the time it doesn't, actually) but "Miami Golem" is undeniably an imaginative and multifaceted film that kept my mate and I fascinated from start to finish.<br /><br />The plot is extremely difficult to briefly summarize but I'll try anyway. Sceptical journalist Craig Milford is reporting the story of a German scientist who allegedly discovered extraterrestrial DNA inside a crashed meteorite and managed to clone it. The DNA cell belongs to an evil alien force that already exterminated another interstellar race in the past and it will unquestionably destroy the whole of mankind as soon as it grows large enough in size. If this isn't problematic enough already, the rich Mr. Anderson ordered to steal the slowly growing evil fetus because he thinks that he can manipulate it and use it to obtain world domination. With the help of some good aliens in an earthly disguise, Craig Milford has the difficult task of safeguarding the planet from the evil fetus. Okay, I know all this sounds grotesque and silly, but I assure that "Miami Golem" is in fact a light-headed and easy digestible flick. The first half of the film may come across as overly hectic and confusing, because Alberto De Martino attempts to keep the plot secret through the use of preposterous red herrings. There are subliminal ghostly appearances, supportive characters behaving exaggeratedly mysterious for no real reason and at a certain point there are even speculations about the lost continent of Atlantis. This is all misleading padding material, however, and as soon as the set-up is more or less clear "Miami Golem" turns into an ordinary early 80's popcorn action movie with bloody massacres, flamboyant chase sequences (in the Florida Everglades!), explosions, gratuitous sleaze and nasty little fetus-monsters in jars.<br /><br />Now, I really don't want to raise the impression that "Miami Golem" is a lost and undeservedly obscure gem of Italian exploitation cinema. Make no mistake, this is a pretty bad movie! The events only become endurable if you accept the stupidity and incoherence of the plot and if you don't succeed in that, well than this is just a non-stop spitfire of negative aspects. The acting performances are painfully awful. Particularly B-movie veteran John Ireland, as the archetypal James Bond villainous character, doesn't seem the least interested in the script. You can tell from his grimaces and by the way he delivers his lines that he also thinks the whole production is retarded and simply signed up for the paycheck. Laura Trotter is probably the least sexy female lust-object ever, and the person who drew the marvelously chaotic VHS cover must have felt exactly the same way, because the ravishing girl on the cover does not appear anywhere in the movie. What an embarrassment this must be for Mrs. Trotter. Still, her completely gratuitous nudity sequences compensate for this, as she's quite hot from the neck down. And, finally, there's the unforgettable scene where David Warbeck takes down a helicopter from a moving school bus with a regular pistol! I don't think even John Rambo can do this, while he's a beefcake Vietnam veteran and Warbeck's character is a simple TV-reporter. | 0neg
|
This budget-starved Italian action/sci-fi hybrid features David Warbeck as a Miami reporter who is chosen by the ghosts of the people of Atlantis (!) to stop an evil businessman (Academy Award nominee John Ireland) from using a telepathic fetus grown using spores from an asteroid to rule the world. You got all that? Despite such a loopy plot, this is actually quite a bore and the RAIDERS OF ATLANTIS sneers at it with contempt. Honestly, the most (intentionally) creative thing about this flick is the slight reworking of Herbie Hancock's BEVERLY HILLS COP theme for the opening titles. The most unintentionally creative bit involves a scene in a lab that is inexplicably shown twice back-to-back. Perhaps director Alberto De Martino wanted to get all avant garde on us in the twilight of his career? I was going to declare this Ireland's worst film on his resume but then I saw SATAN'S CHEERLEADERS was listed on there. I would also like to safely declare that I am probably the only person in the history of the world to do a double feature of this and Hitchcock's VERTIGO. | 0neg
|
All I can say is, before watching the movie I did not have a hint indication who Annemarie Schwarzenbach was or what was her life story..and I have to confess that the movie was hardly a help to reach these data.. and even it was not successful to persuade me to do some research by typing few words on google website; however, all I can say is that the actress Jeanette Hain was great with her mute facial expression she really played well and showed a deep depression mental status, as it is in real.<br /><br />After all , based on the script the movie has happened in turkey and Tehran as well as Afghanistan.. but believe me I am familiar with the area , it was all about an Arabic desert in morocco.. Turkish people and persian people are completely different in face and culture as well as in language which is not arabic..<br /><br />I suppose for making a film like this- documentary type- a thorough research about all these minor elements is mandatory.. | 0neg
|
The movie's storyline is pat and quaint. Two women travel through the middle east and discover themselves. Unfortunately, if you are looking for a movie about the middle east and central Asia this is absolutely terrible.<br /><br />The producers of the film either did no research or were unbelievably lazy when filming it. To begin with, and most glaringly incorrect, the Nuristanis, as they were known in the thirties, and indeed since the 1890s and their forceful conversion by Abdul-Rahman Shah of Aghnaistan, were not nomads. In fact they have not been nomads since the Aryan invasions of central Asia over three milenia ago.<br /><br />Second, the city that is filmed as Tehran is not Tehran, which is understandable, however the geography of the area around the city could not be more strikingly DIFFERENT than the city of Tehran, which is surrounded on all side by a large mountain range, which predominates all of the cities views.<br /><br />Third, Persian, despite the fact it is spoken in Iran and Afghanistan, is never heard in movie. When there are native speakers who do not speak in German they speak in Arabic. The 'Persian' guards at the border, in fact, say to each other 'Ma hadha rujal' (This is not a man) and not 'in mard nist' as it would be in Persian. Also, the love song between the Indian princess and one of the main characters is obviously in Spanish. While talking in the garden one of the main characters says that the Quran uses the words 'Ferdos' and 'jehaan' and makes some reference to drugs afterwords. These words certainly never appear in the Quran as they are Persian for Paradise (indeed, Ferdos and Paradise are very distant cognates between our languages) and 'World' respectively, though Jehaan is admittedly close to 'Jehennan' which is hell in Arabic. When they encounter the nomads in the desert the language spoken is also Arabic, this despite the fact that there are NO native speakers of Arabic in Iran and Afghanistan and its use is primarily religious, with some use in education at that time.<br /><br />When they are stopped in Iran before they reach the Afghan border the people they encounter are wholly unlike any Iranian group. Their tents are typically bedouin with carpets decorating the walls and a high profile. In Iran it is also extremely uncommon for people to wear Turbans unless they are a cleric. The language spoken is clearly Arabic from the initial greeting of 'Ahlan wa Sahlan.' When they do reach Kabul the desert they find themselves in is sandy, totally unlike the rock dirt that is found in the arid parts of the Hindu Kush mountain range. There is an absence of the light green scrub that covers the ground in the summer and spring. The area is also not wholly consumed by the extreme mountains of the mountain range that won its name, The Indian Killers, because of its difficult and limiting ground.<br /><br />In short, the story line is the only thing in this movie that holds any water and it is still weak and common place. It lacks any real draw to it, being merely the tale of two women trying to learning about themselves as they get to Nuristan, however, even that is still-born and no real development is felt, leaving the characters in the end just where they were in the beginning and nothing has changed except that world war two has broken loose. In short, this is a really bad movie that I would have rated at one star except for the good footage of Bedouin and the deserts of the Levant, even if they are misnamed. | 0neg
|
Whatever the merits of the film, it is poorly researched. As others have pointed out, the movie shows locals in Iran speaking in Arabic, rather than Persian. That is enough to lose credibility for anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the area or the country. The landscape could not be more different from the actual.<br /><br />Other factual errors: A train is shown to be operating in Afghanistan, while Afghanistan does not have railways. The Turkish ambassador is wearing a Fez (the red hat), whereas the Fez was banned by Turkey much before the time in which the movie is set. The Turkish ambassador's daughter is actually dressed as an Indian, and Indian classical music is playing in the background in many scenes. I suppose the filmmakers meant to show an exotic woman, and sari was what they decided would make her exotic. | 0neg
|
Usually I love Lesbian movies even when they are not very good. I'm biased, I guess! <br /><br />But this one is just the pits. Yes, the scenery and the buildings are beautiful, and there is a brief but beautiful erotic interlude, but otherwise this movie is just a complete waste of time. Annamarie alternates between sulking and getting high/stoned/passing out on whatever drug or booze is handy, and Ella inexplicably puts up with this abominable behavior through the entire movie. At no time are we given any insight into why this is so, or even why Annamarie is so depressed and withdrawn.<br /><br />If there had at least been some kind of closure in the (potentially romantic? we don't even know!) relationship between the two, there might have been some kind of satisfaction. But although Annamarie at one point asks Ella "why do you love me?" Ella doesn't even acknowledge this. It's never really clear whether this is anything more than an (ill-behaved) Lesbian on a boring road trip with a straight woman.<br /><br />Even the interactions between the two women and the local people they meet on the journey, which could have been lively and informative, are instead flat, tedious and mostly incomprehensible.<br /><br />There is one good joke in the movie, although I'm sure it was unintentional. The women travel in a two-seat Ford coupe with a middling sized trunk. Yet when they set up camp, they have an enormous tent, cots, sleeping gear, and even a table, chair, and typewriter! On top of that, when they board a ferry, we see piles of luggage, presumably theirs, presumably also carried in the little Ford's trunk! <br /><br />And through the entire film, we never see one gas station, or anywhere that looks like it would actually have any place to buy gasoline. Mostly they travel through endless miles of desolate desert. So where did they get fuel?<br /><br />There may not be too many Lesbian films out there, good or bad, but there are plenty that are better than this, and very few that are worse. Leave this one in the rack. | 0neg
|
We went to the movie with a group because the play we were going to was cancelled. It is without doubt one of the worst movies ever. It is not that i don't like cult-movies I do. But nothing happens in the film. One does not feel any connection with the characters whatsoever. endless times without dialog. And the car. How do thay carry a huge tent and beds chairs and clothing for every day in that car? It is a two seater! I have to say however the scenery is beautiful, but not in a movie, the director should have made a photoshoot of the movie, so that we could skip about 80 minutes of useless time in with nothing happens anyway.<br /><br /> I would not recommend it, as it is a waste of your time | 0neg
|
One of Frances Farmer's earliest movies; at 22, she is absolutely beautiful. Bing Crosby is in great voice, but the songs are not his best. Martha Raye and Bob Burns are interesting, but their comedy, probably great in its time, is really corny today. Roy Rogers also appears- in a singing role. In my view only worth watching if you are a Frances Farmer fan, and possibly a Bing Crosby fan. | 0neg
|
"Tapeheads", a scrappy, intermittently funny spoof of the music video business, might have been the perfect comedic short, and stars John Cusack and Tim Robbins are effortlessly in the swing of the nonsensical chaos involved. They play two semi-savvy security guards in Los Angeles who start their own company, Video Aces, making hilarious videos for groups, parties, and one deathbed star. It's too bad the filmmakers had to invent a dim side-plot to pad the running time (shenanigans involving a crooked politician and his henchmen which doesn't do much except take away from the movie's primary strength, sending-up the music culture of the late-'80s). Still, Cusack and Robbins create a couple of originals here: nerdy but loose, street-smart without being hipsters or posers, these guys are on the same nutty wavelength, and they never put each other down. They're the real thing in buddy-comedies. *1/2 from **** | 0neg
|
Tim Robbins and John Cusack are two actors I have appreciated throughout their careers, and that was the only reason for choosing to watch this movie. Well, all I can say is I totally regretted it! These two great actors humiliate themselves all the way through by performing a number of irrelevant, unimaginative and kitch to the extreme (not that this is bad on its own)sketches that are supposed to make people laugh, but fail to do so. The only reason I can think is that the director was their friend, and they decided to support his movie by starring in it-I can't think of anything else because this movie is SO cheap! Fortunately Tim Robbins and John Cusack haven't disappointed me ever since. I would recommend you to avoid this film, unless you want your opinion about the two actors spoiled. | 0neg
|
One of my sisters friends lent me this game, and it is too damn hard! It carries the appearance of a kids game, but you have to learn how to do tons of intricate moves that require you to twist and turn your hands into all sorts of awkward positions, and you have to search seemingly endless levels for 100 notes, to improve your 'score'! You also have to find these impossibly hidden jigsaw puzzle pieces, that require you to do almost impossible tasks to get them! AND I AM ONLY UP TO STAGE THREE!!!!! Maybe if you have no life nad can stay home all the time you might get some enjoyment out of this, but otherwise keep away! AND IT IS DEFINATELY NOT RECOMMENDED FOR KIDS - THEY WILL PULL THEIR HAIR OUT WITHIN THE HOUR! | 0neg
|
My complaints here concern the movie's pacing and the material at hand. While using archival film and letters lends the film a fresh and interesting perspective, too often the material selected to highlight simply isn't very interesting (such as when Goebbels complains about this or that ailment, &tc., or the ad nauseam footage of his small German hometown). Also, the movie crawls along in covering c. 1920-1939 and then steams through the war years. In sum, the film is little better than a History Channel documentary, with the exception that the filmmaker has a slightly greater sensibility than your average History Channel documentary editor and thus can more artfully arrange the details of Goebbels' life. Still, I found it wanting. | 0neg
|
December holiday specials, like the original Frosty, ought to be richly-produced with quality music and a wholesome, yet lighthearted storyline. They should have a touch of the mystical magic of the holidays. Basically, they should look, sound, and feel...well, "special" and they should have a decent and appropriate December holiday subtext.<br /><br />So when I saw Legend of Frosty the Snowman in the TV listings, I got my kids (6 and 8) pumped up for it by telling them the story of the original Frosty and passionately relating how much I enjoyed it as a kid. As my wife and kids cozied up on the couch to watch the movie the expectations were high, but 10 minutes into it my kids were yawning and my wife and I were giving each other "the look" and rolling our eyes. After 35 minutes my kids were actually asking to go to bed -- I guess they were fed up with the insensitive language and pointless, disconnected segments. I was actually embarrassed about their (and my) disappointment with this movie.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Legend of Frosty the Snowman is more like a bad episode of Fairly Odd Parents crossed with a worse-than-normal episode of Sponge Bob than a classic holiday movie. Don't get me wrong...those shows are fine and I like them as much as the next guy, but when I watch Fairly Odd Parents or Sponge Bob, my low expectations (for mediocre, off-color, zero subtext, mind numbing episodes) are always satisfied.<br /><br />We picked out some good books and spent the rest of the evening reading together. A much better choice than the embarrassingly bad Legend of Frosty the Snowman. | 0neg
|
The John Goodman program was pretty awful, but this thing just plain stinks. The one and only thing in this mess that made me smile was recognizing the voice of Patrick Starfish as Frosty. The story is hopeless, written by somebody who has garbled memories of childhood rebelliousness but has never gained any adult sense of perspective in the intervening years. Paranoia rules the dark world that these characters inhabit. Everybody is unpleasant, and for no reason. The plot is predictable but the show lurches from one inexplicable, unconnected scene to another in such a pointless way there is no fun in watching it. The worst thing is nobody in the production crew seems to have ever seen snow! | 0neg
|
I disliked Frosty returns and this one. Both of the films are absurd with poorly written characters and bad voices. The voices could have been done but Frosty returns was worst than this because of the unalike snowman they drew. Frosty's winterwonder land was great and so was the original heartwarming Drama. The only good thing about this film was Frosty the snowman was alike of the classic 60s and a funny line like when they were talking about things that are not real and then Frosty walks by the window humming, whistling whatever he was doing but everything else was badly written and badly animated and I barely got the plot. I saw the DVD cover at the library about 2 or 3 years ago and the art looked crappy so I didn't pick it up until this year because the pictures on the back looked a little touching but I played this film. It was a hassle poorly art characters just like the DVD and it was just terrible about what's going on. I watched this at night and found it dull that I fell asleep on the whole thing (Wait I always do that when I watch something while I go to sleep) But this movie was overall boring<br /><br />Overall rating: Grade -C<br /><br />This is like another holiday special bad rip-off in the frosty returns and this one. This one is the badly 4th sequel like Home alone 4 well i thought that movie was OK but home alone 3 was great. But it's like a bad home alone 3 and 4 people hate like this. My sister didn't watch it that much because when she came into my room to watch 2 minutes and a half of it, she walked away like "I hate the animation!" I agree to her just like the 3rd one Frosty returns. Plain awful! | 0neg
|
A young scientist is trying to carry on his dead father's work on limb regeneration.His overbearing mother has convinced him that he murdered his own father and is monitoring his progress for her own evil purposes.A young doctor uses reptilian DNA he extracts from a large creature and when his arm is conveniently ripped off a few minutes later,he injects himself with his formula and grows a new murderous arm...Admittedly the special effects in "Severed Ties" are pretty good and grotesque,but the rest of the film is awful.The severed arm is behaving like a snake and kills few people.Big deal.The acting is mediocre and the climax is silly.3 out of 10. | 0neg
|
A young scientist Harry Harrison is continuing his late father's scientific research into limb regeneration with flying colours, but his interferingly dominate mother and her doctor lover want to sell off the serum. When he finds out, there is an accident involving Harry losing an arm. So, he tries out the serum and what eventuates is a genetically deranged arm that has a mind of its own.<br /><br />Oh we've seen this oh so many times before, but what lifts this very campy and quite rubbery shonky junk is the performance of movie icons Elke Sommer and Oliver Reed. Actually it's not a bad flick by Fangoria films; just there are better ones out there, which are similar in vein. "Servered Ties" simply lacks it own distinctive style. The oddball nature and unpleasant splatter resembled "Re-animator" and even a touch of slapstick stuck out like something from "Evil Dead 2".<br /><br />The comic story is truly whacked out with it's black humour, but it can get melodramatic and a bit in dry in the fun factor. Surprises do crop up, especially the flick's final outcome. Which is well accepted, as I thought it could have copped out with something more accessible. For a low-budget production the FX makeup can look rigid and very goofy, but there's some grotesque moments that will make you smile than actually cringe. Even a brush of sexual tension streamlines the story, thanks to Elke Sommer's sternly juicy performance as the mother. Oliver Reed is quite humorously deadpan in a wicked sense and he pulls it off extremely well. They were both immensely diverting as the couple you loved to hate. Billy Morrisette is delightful in a erratic performance as Harry. Director Damon Santostefano briskly paces the film and orchestrates some stylish scenes of gripping and bamboozling horror.<br /><br />Yeah it's juvenile and basically silly nonsense, but you got to hand it to it for some undemanding entertainment. | 0neg
|
The TV guide described the plot of SEVERED TIES as thus : " An experiment on a severed arm goes awry " so right away I thought this was going to be about an arm that`s got a mind of its own as seen in THE BEAST WITH FIVE FINGERS or THE HAND or someone getting an arm transplant as in BODY PARTS . Both premises are tried and tested , or to be more accurate tired and tested so I was curious as to how the producers would approach the story . I actually thought they were making an arthouse movie like PI down to the use of B&W photography at the start of the film but the makers seemed to have tired of this approach after 20 seconds and decided to make a splatter comedy similar to THE EVIL DEAD . I`ve very little to say on this except that I disliked THE EVIL DEAD movies and I disliked SEVERED TIES and it seems really unfair that films like this use an obscene amount of rubber when the third world is crying out for condoms | 0neg
|
If you like occasional nudity with junior high school level slap stick comedy, then look no further.<br /><br />Starting at about the halfway point, the beautiful and erotic Arielle Dombasle starts disrobing at every opportunity. That is the only thing that made this movie worth watching.<br /><br />The story is both lame and preposterous, the humor is corny, and character development is basically non-existent. | 0neg
|
Oh man, I know what your thinking: "With a title like that, I can't go wrong!" Uh yes you can. I too, loved the title, but man I hated the stupid kid that played "Satan's little helper" I hated the mom too, and the sister/daughter, and her boyfriend - I hated all those people! Man, it was agony watching this sometimes! The ONLY reason this doesn't get 1/10 is becuz condsidering the low budget, they did OK. But oh man did I hate those actors, so stupid! I knew it was going to be bad, I guess they saved a lot of money on just using halloween masks for the killer, and the Jesus costume at the end was really stupid too. Oh the agony, do not watch! | 0neg
|
I'm going to say first off that I have given this film a 3 out of 10 after some thought. I was going to give it a straight out 1 but it got a couple extra points for the body count. But that would be about it. Let me explain. I paid literally £1 for this DVD in a supermarket because I tend to have a lot of faith in bargain horror flicks, B-movies especially. But if this film was aiming for B status as I suspect it was for a number of reasons (which I'll touch on in a sec) then it failed magnificently. Not only did it shoot for B and miss, it landed somewhere around F. This film had so many opportunities to be good and it pretty much failed on all accounts. I say above that it's likely this film was aiming for B status and it seems to try and achieve this by trying to blend humour with horror, which can either be very good or very bad. For example, later Freddy films (Dream Warriors onwards) are all about Freddy's style and nose-thumbing, which works out great! But this film completely bombed in that respect because the times where they tried to inject humour were mostly just stupid. I will admit though that towards the beginning of the film the humour was good. In fact, for about half an hour I liked this film and was prepared to congratulate myself on another good find. BUT what really killed this film for me was the inappropriate kills. For instance, when 'Satan' smashes the cat against the board and writes 'boo' with it's blood using its body as a brush. Or when 'Satan' slams the door into the helpless disabled elderly woman. Now I'm not usually too against senseless kills in films-hey, thats the point, right? But in those two cases I just found it grossly offensive and unnecessary to anything in the film-plot especially. For me, the film went downwards from then on. One major bad point about this film is that I hated every character in it. The kid, Dougie was just ridiculously annoying!!! I'm at a loss to explain how he could possibly write off all those bodies and people being killed in front of his eyes as a trick! I mean, come on!!! I completely understand that to be in a horror film a character does have to be somewhat stupid, like running upstairs when you should blatantly be running out of the house screaming for help, but this kid took the biscuit! I wanted to kill him myself by the end of it! It was completely unbelievable and if I had to hear him say 'duh!' one more time I was going to bang my head against a wall-because thats what watching this film felt like. Why didn't i just turn the film off? Mainly because I honestly believe an ending can sometimes redeem a film. But I was wrong in this case. The ending did NOT redeem this film, it further irritated the hell out of me and was inadequate to the plot line. I get it already! The killer is always going to come back dressed as someone else, be welcomed into the house by the stupid kid and go on a killing spree again because no one suspects him in that costume! I GET IT! This film made me physically angry because it was so stupid! And if by some foul mistake you do end up watching this film, watch out for the intestines. Frankly, if that guy actually did have intestines that looked like that, I'd be surprised he wasn't already dead, let alone until someones rips them out and ties them to a chair.<br /><br />In fact, I'll even go so far as to say that the only character I liked at all in this film was actually the killer. Purely because when his 'comedy routine' worked, it did work. All in all, the plot line of this film dragged anything that might have been good down. Why was the killer killing? I don't know. I can live without knowing who he actually was, thats fairly typical, but without some kind of motive - hell i don't know, i'd settle for him having a bad Halloween as a kid! -it just seems more than senseless, just stupid. Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid. In fact, i hated this film so much that i specifically registered with IMDb just so i could comment on it. Save your money, save your sanity. Stay away from it! | 0neg
|
with a title like this, you know not to expect a great horror movie. But this was really bad, even with low expectations. The plot is really insulting and stupid: an escaped criminal wears a Halloween mask, so everyone around him thinks he's someone else. this joke might actually work for 5 or 10 minutes, but not during the entire movie ! the actors are not that bad, but their characters are rather dumb and the story is boring and downright stupid. No suspense, no excitement and little gore (very cheap). Satan's Little Helper tries to combine horror (...) with comedy and fails dramatically at that. It became so boring towards the end, that I actually stopped watching 10 minutes before the end. I couldn't care whatever happened. Amanda Plummer was great in Pulp Fiction, but come on.. that was 13 years ago, and she hasn't done anything decent after that. So no wonder that she had to sink as low as this piece of crap.. Avoid or be warned.. | 0neg
|
Satan's Little Helper is one of the better B Horror movies I have seen. When I say better I mean the story. The film hatches a new plot, something that's not so cliché in the Horror genre - something fresh. But there are also some ridiculous questions that come along with it. Questions you will be asking yourself throughout the movie.<br /><br />The film first caught my attention while I was cruising the Horror section in HMV. I was tired of all the so called "terrifiying" Hollywood blockbusters and wanted something different. The cover art for Satan's Little Helper immediately caught my attention. As you can see, the image draws you in - it's chilling! I knew it was a straight to DVD release - but I took a chance. I mean, I just seen "Boogey Man" the night before - so It couldn't get any worse! After I watched the movie, I was semi-satisfied. I loved the plot of the movie. It was really creepy how the killer was pretending to be the little boys friend, so he could kill. In some sick deranged way, he actually thought he and the little boy would become partners - a duo of terror. It was a great idea to set the film on Halloween night. This way, no one would think anything of a masked man beside a little kid. They would simply think he was his guardian. But, this is also where the "plot holes" begin to surface.<br /><br />If your son came home with a "friend" he met trick or treating - that's fine. You wouldn't think anything of it - if he was 9!, or round about the same age as him. If however, he appeared with a strange man in a mask, you would be startled and protective of your child. You would ask the man to remove his mask and identify himself. You would ask why he is with your son. He doesn't know him. You would tell him to please leave. He isn't a family friend. He's a stranger. Now, we're supposed to teach our child not to talk to strangers. In this case, the mum is completely fine with it. Huh? They never seem to think it's a tad odd that the "man" doesn't speak - at all. Gruanted they think it's the daughters boyfriend, but after 10 minutes of not talking you would pull the mask off and ask him why he's not saying a word.<br /><br />The film goes down hill from there. The thing that got me the most was, all the mum said was "Do you want some cider?". I can't count how many times she says this in the movie. It's like, oh you're dying - we have cider though, it's all good!! The movie started promising, and failed to deliver. It was more of a horror/comedy, and even as that it fails to deliver. I guess you could call it a "Dud","Flop" etc..<br /><br />The best thing about the movie is the cover art. Though, something tells me that's not worth the 12 dollars! | 0neg
|
The fact that someone actually spent money on such a bad script, is beyond me. This really must be one of the worst films, in addition to "Haunted Highway" I have ever seen. BAD actors, and a really bad story. There's no normal reactions to any event in this film, and even though it's Halloween , normal people would have bigger reactions when they're witnessing their father being killed, not to mention gutted, people with tape covering their airways, not being able to breathe (in a room with at least 50 people I might add) and some person dressed up as Satan dragging dead people out of his house, even an 8 year old would see the difference between a doll and a person. Not to mention the fact that no one could possibly be that naive and dumb to believe the reality of Satan and Jesus' appearances on the same day, like this kid does. When i was 8, I sure had more brains than that. <br /><br />But, the really stupid thing is that everyone else seems to be falling for this mute Satan look-alike as well, no questions asked. The question throughout the film is, is it really Satan, or is it some crazy person killing people off whenever he feels like it? Well, he's got human hands, arms, built and whatever, so I guess he's supposed to be in the movie as well, otherwise they did a lousy job concealing it. Then, with this person being human and all, he was able to kill an old lady, a man and his mistress, 5 (!!???) cops (all with guns and training i presume), and a few other people.....and obviously everyone was just standing there waiting for him, or what?<br /><br />The whole concept and way of telling the story is absolutely the worst thing I've seen, and I would never recommend anyone to waste 1 hour and 30 minutes of their lives to watch this total crap. | 0neg
|
Worst Bob Hope comedy ever(and that includes some heavy competition). Hope, on an island with sailors, dreams aloud of being in a bathtub with a geisha girl "steering his ship". Somebody certainly steered this Hope-hackery over the cliff, as it features Phyllis Diller and Gina Lollobrigida and still can't work up any laughs or excitement. Where's Bing Crosby when you really need him? | 0neg
|
The fifth "Black Emanuelle" I've watched has, potentially, the most intriguing plot line dealing as it does with the intrepid female reporter investigating the white slavery/prostitution racket which takes her from San Francisco to Rome to Macao and back to her own hometown, New York! The film is peopled with past veterans of the series which, inexplicably, play completely different roles, namely Ivan Rassimov (appearing here as a head of a United Nations committee for Third World countries!), Karin Shubert (as a feminist rival reporter) and Don Powell (as Rassimov's chauffeur).<br /><br />Unfortunately, as usual with this type of film (despite their being shown in the dead of night), it is heavily edited and a particularly graphic scene (described in "Stracultr) in which an Asian slave trader gets his comeuppance by being sodomized by a dog is nowhere to be seen here!! Still, a harrowing sequence late in the film when a sleazy politician tricks a couple of girls (including, naturally, Gemser and Shubert) into a midnight rendezvous under a New York bridge with a group of bums (this is the way he gets their votes, get it!) - with his high society pals giddily looking on - seems pretty much intact.<br /><br />The most ridiculous element of this entry - apart from Gemser's penchant to disrobe completely every time she enters a house (even in front of perfect strangers) - is her excursion to India to interview a charlatan/Guru (George Eastman made up to look considerably Christ-like!) who has found a way to prolong coitus indefinitely; of course, when Emanuelle calls him up on it, he ends up having premature ejaculation...!! | 0neg
|
Cut to the chase, this is one of the five worst films that I've ever seen.<br /><br />Not that they didn't try. There was some decent writing with some elements of structure in there, a good cast, some good acting. I'm not sure where it went wrong, but it went horribly wrong.<br /><br />Some of the elements may have been bad structure and no substantive story, a lot of overacting by the lead (who probably is much better when restrained), some bad directing and editing. I had enough at about an hour, tearing my hair out at about a hour and a half and very agitated at the hour and fifty minutes it ran. There was also an insincerity about it all, being that I went with someone who used to be a heroin addict. He was agitated that it glamorized something that had nothing good to it. That was bolstered by the pretty 17 year-old girl who was in love with the 30 year-old junkie.<br /><br />And the frantic nature of the lead was a turn-off enough. There were clunky plot points that were an attempt at a structure, but the end result was listless and unending (with uneven time lines). The characters were colorful but to no end, which made me feel bad for the quality actors who you've just not seen enough.<br /><br />Skip it. I assumed that this was a first-time director who was enamored by his own turds, but he has done this before. I'm puzzled how this and many other really bad ideas find someone who will actually give them money. | 0neg
|
Plot: an amorous couple decide to engage in some extra-marital hijinks in a flashy car. They then become stuck (literally) in a Compromising Position, while said car wanders aimlessly about the countryside until the hapless couple are rescued by the authorities.<br /><br />That's it. That's the entire movie. There may have been some dialogue here and there, but nothing comes to mind. It should be obvious by now that this movie is not just pointless, but actually physically painful to watch. The fact that it starred two of the UKs best up-and-coming actors (one of whom is now sadly deceased) only adds to the horror.<br /><br />Ian Charleson was outstanding in the very much deserved Oscar-winning 'Chariots of Fire'. Let's remember him for that role, and try hard to pretend that this particular celluloidal abomination never happened. | 0neg
|
<br /><br />Ok, well I rented this movie while I was bed ridden hopped up on pain killers, and let me say, It didn't help the film any.<br /><br />The film is about a man who buys a car as he is going through a midlife crisis, he loves the car more than anything around him, one day his wife decides to borrow the car. Since I don't want to spoil (not that there was anything to spoil) I shall let your imagination figure out the "Zany" (and I use that word lightly) antics that follow.<br /><br />I had to fight to stay awake through this snore a minute sleeper of a film, and I would like to say that if you are venturing to the movie store and are thinking about being adventurous, please don't, it's a waste of the film it was printed on.<br /><br />Then again I could be wrong... | 0neg
|
Given the title and outlandish box art, I was ready for just about anything. Perhaps my expectation were forced just a bit to high, because I was left a little dry.<br /><br />A film crew working on a soft-core sex movie end up at a strange house when they get lost in the fog and decide the best way to spend the evening is to have sex. Where hasn't this set up been used before? The difference here is the uber-perverse nature of the sex. Not allowed to show all the goods (groin shots were illegal in Japan for a long time, what is shown is fogged out) the movie tries as hard as it can to show the viewer just how unnatural sex can be.<br /><br />Amidst all the kinky goings on, a mud monster (whose origin I can't fathom) shows up and begins murdering the men and raping the women...then murdering them too. Some of the sights are a bit much, most notably a woman having her intestines pulled out through her vagina or another woman spitting out a mouthful of...stuff, but otherwise the gore is pretty standard fare.<br /><br />Ultimately the film is pulled down by it's own designs; it's too over-sexed to be a strait horror picture and too gruesome to work as a sex flick. The mediums can work, but there need to be a balance.<br /><br />4/10 | 0neg
|
Maybe it was the title, or the trailer (certainly not the interview on the DVD, which is with the director as he keeps saying "hi, kids" into the camera like a buffoon), but I had expectations for Entrails of a Virgin to be at least a bit of sleazy fun with some good sex scenes and brutal, bloody killings by a weird Japanese penetrator. Turns out it's way too sleazy for its own good, or bad, or whatever. There's a problem- and one can see this also in the Italian sexploitation flick Porno Holocaust, similar to this in many respects- in not having balance to the sex and violence. Too much sex and it will turn into a prototypical porno, and not even with much production quality in comparison with most professional porno movies! And with the killing scenes, there has to be at least a little tack, and maybe just a smidgen of ingenuity, in creating the creature/killer/whatever. Entrails of a Virgin has neither. It's safe to say it's a pretty soulless movie, even if isn't one of the very worst ever made- it's there just for horn-dog Japanese fetishists to get off on girls in trouble and men who have all their brains in their 'other' heads.<br /><br />In this case, we're given a photo team where the guys are taking some shots of some girls, nothing too salacious, and then by way of a dense fog they stay off at some house one night and are picked off one by one by "A Murderer" as he's credited. First off, the director Kazuo 'Gaira' Komizu decides he has to put in a quota of random sex scenes early on- we get spliced in (or phoned in, take your pick) clips of one of the photographers having sex with one or more of the girls elsewhere. It looks like it's from another movie. Then once settled into the house, there's a 'wrestling' scene that's poorly choreographed and shot (yeah, we really need to see him 'all' there), and then on to the rape and killings. First the rape, by the photographers, who promise the girls some jobs for their time. Then the Murderer, who like D'Amato's creature is simply covered in mud and given a stupid facial, and who for an unknown reason kills the men and/or rapes the women one by one.<br /><br />Now, the latter of those, taken by themselves, should be considered the highlights of the movie. This is like saying, however, that the croûtons are the best part of a wretchedly tasting salad. An eye-gouging scene, a spike thrown like an Olympic event (that scene, actually, is kind of cool), and finally the entrailing of the overly sex-crazed girl, whose inconsequential name I can't remember. Even *this* becomes disappointing just by not being correct to the title! On top of this, the sex scenes, which become tedious through 'Gaira' and his indulgence in long-takes-without-cutaways where everything by the Japanese censors is blurred anyway, are dubbed over by the actors (you'd think that they seem to be enjoying themselves enough, hence the need to let them 'speak' for themselves). But the overall feeling from Entrails of a Virgin is that of a lumpy one, where it's just there to be gawked at and without a shred of suspense or true horror (watch as the last girl left alive, the virgin of the picture, tries to stop the murderer from getting to her, which lasts five minutes as she keeps throwing sticks at him!) You just want it to be done with, for the 'I hate women' mantra to ease up or be rid altogether. | 0neg
|
OK the plot is, wait you got me there is no true discernible plot here just a string of optically fogged sex scenes, strung together by scenes of photographers taking pictures of pretty ladies (Sometimes a combination of the two) Then a demon comes around kills the men, rapes and kills the women, and waxes poetic about the meaning of life. Moronic special effects, bad acting and bizarre philosophy aside, you get what you expect from a film with a title like this. I guess it would have to be someone's cup of tea, just not mine as I have yet to see a good Kazuo 'Gaira' Komizu directed film.<br /><br />DVD Extras: Subtitled Interview with Director Kazuo Komizu Part 1 (Part 2 is on the Entrails of a Beautiful Woman DVD); and Theatrical Tailer<br /><br />My Grade: F | 0neg
|
Less self-conscious and much less pretentious than GUTS OF A BEAUTY, this Kazuo Komizu gore flick is worth a look (at least once).<br /><br />Sleazy snapshotters escort wanna-be actresses/models to a remote house in the woods in order to sexually molest them. Unfortunately (for the horny boys), a long-schlonged demon, who lives in the woods, has already targeted the girls for fun.<br /><br />The thing even ends up having fun with the boys -- that's IF you consider beheadings, dismemberment and masturbation with severed limbs "fun".<br /><br />Once again, it all sounds better on paper than it looks and sounds on film.<br /><br />Just as Komizu mangled LIVING DEAD AT TOKYO BAY with his ineptitude, he also mangles this effort and is only saved by some audacious violence and some great white panty shots.<br /><br />Don't buy the hype, though, or you'll be sorely disappointed. | 0neg
|
<br /><br />Entrails of a Virgin is so bizarre and incomprehensible that it allows the viewer to interpret it subjectively, applying whatever meaning he wishes to its inexplicable excesses of sex and violence. If this was an intentional characteristic of the film, it would be a work of postmodern brilliance-but of course it isn't. <br /><br />Without getting too much into plot summary, let's take a quick walking tour of the events. At a secluded cabin, an orgy is in progress, which includes topless wrestling and diaper p***ing. A vanload of latecomers joins the orgy in progress, but they have unwittingly been followed by a monster I like to call "the muddy ninja." This monster precedes to slay orgy participants one by one, except the proverbial virgin (if you don't count oral sex) who receives his seed and consequently becomes so passionate with desire that she masturbates with someone's severed hand. <br /><br />Finally she has her guts pulled out, and then there's a scene which seems to imply that she's pregnant with a baby muddy ninja. Got all that? If you're going to rent this movie, it's best if you don't speak Japanese and don't have any subtitles. In a season populated by boring Hollywood flicks, putting this in your VCR might be the cinematic equivalent of shock therapy. It will certainly be something different. | 0neg
|
I guess I only have myself to blame for the gigantic disillusion that is "Entrails of a Virgin". You already know not to expect a cinematic masterpiece when you see a juicy and proudly promoted title like this and the first impression only gets extra confirmed when noticing the film is a mid-80's production from Japan. Now, there are quite a lot of demented and sick filmmakers active in Japan, but Kazuo Komizu surpasses them all with his thoroughly depraved and sickening trilogy revolving on nothing but aggressive sex and the sadistic abuse of young girls. Not even attempting to tell a story, "Entrails of a Virgin" simply presents a hodgepodge of UN-arousing semi-pornographic sex and truly poor gore-effects that wouldn't even please the most undemanding fan of cheesy 80's horror. Images of a bunch of photographers and their fashion models are inexplicably intercut with scenes of a filthy pervert having crude sex with a seemly under-aged girl. He dumps her not even a minute after climaxing (typical) and she begs him to stay, even if she has to share him with other women. I don't get it. Is this supposed to represent a general male fantasy? Because it's really clichéd and wrongful. Anyways, back to the bunch of horny photographers and docile models. Surprised by upcoming fog on their way home, the group entrenches themselves in an abandoned country house where they have more appalling sex and eventually fall victim to a ridiculous sex-demon who kills them all. The acting performances are amateurish, the dialogs inane and primitive and Komizu's direction is weak and uninspired. I can tolerate all that, including the woman-unfriendly portrayal of sex, but I came too close to turning the film off during the indescribably mean-spirited wrestling sequence. One of the males brutally hits, kicks and throws around one of the girls and calls her a filthy whore until she literally pees her panties and cries with agony. This sequence is, in my humble opinion, the absolute low-point of Asian exploitation cinema. One to avoid and maybe even boycott. | 0neg
|
I LOVE Don Knotts, let me just say that up-front! He is an enormous talent and the best at what he does, which is portray a nervous, lovably befuddled loser thrown into a position of authority. He is fabulous in this role as Roy Fleming, the Reluctant Astronaut, but the film is pretty dull, really, even though as a kid my brother and I delighted in watching this and his other films. It's still worth watching but really it's a film that is best enjoyed by children. I'd categorize it as 100% family-friendly and something you could sit down and watch with your kids on a family night.<br /><br />As with all of Knotts' films, there's a great cast of beloved character actors and you can't help but smile when Knotts gives one of his shaky, open-mouthed stares, no matter how old and jaded you are.<br /><br />From an adult perspective, one thing I think that is great about this film is how it captures NASA in the 1960s -- all the new modern buildings, the hope, the optimism, the future! And I was surprised at how suave and studly Leslie Neilsen was back then. Only complaint about the story is Roy's love interest, a rather threadbare, unlikeable woman who can't give him the time of day until he becomes a big shot -- if you're like me, you'll be hoping that he gives her the shove-off at the end. Beware -- you'll be whistling the theme tune for days after watching, it's that catchy. | 0neg
|
After leaving TV's popular "The Andy Griffith Show", Don Knotts gave movie stardom a valiant try with a series of inane but matinée-pleasing comedy vehicles. Unfortunately, "The Reluctant Astronaut", filmed on the cheap (as were most of Knotts' movies), is much worse than his others. Don plays a small town schnook who gets accepted to Astronaut Training camp...but not as a candidate for space travel--they want him as their new janitor! Some may say the weak satire capitalizes on Americans' then-fresh fever for the new age of technology, but the flick is really just a dim excuse to keep restless children occupied. It gets off to a good start, with an OK set-up and nostalgic locations, but it becomes increasingly more spiritless and idiotic. * from **** | 0neg
|
This movie is all ultra-lightweight fluff, predictable from beginning to end. As a Don Knotts vehicle, "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" was much better, with Knott's character there not nearly as incompetent or ignorant. His performance there was toned down, with none of his trademark goggle-eyed stare, although that may have something to do with him being replaced for most of the movie by a cartoon fish. Knotts made a living of playing the likable imbecile, much as Bob Denver did. Neither really seemed to be able to break out to other types of roles, assuming they were simply typecast. It was probably because of the slouch, the wild stare and the high-pitched voice. John Ritter, whom Knotts worked with in "Three's Company," was able to transcend his genre, branching out successfully into dramatic roles like "The Dreamer of Oz," but the closest Knotts ever got was a small role in "Pleasantville." Even Leslie Nielsen was a bad fit here, uncomfortably neither straight dramatic actor as he was at the time nor deadpan comedic actor as he later became in "Airplane!" and "Police Squad."<br /><br />There's also no way the then-43 year-old Knotts could pass for a 35 year-old, as his character insisted he was. It was as ludicrously unbelievable as Tom Hanks at 38 playing the college-age Forrest Gump.<br /><br />The film was clearly made on a shoestring budget, very much looking like a hastily-filmed TV episode. It's especially evident in the "exterior" scenes of the "town" where Roy goes after he's fired. It's unlikely even a pre-schooler would be fooled by the Mayberry-like soundstage artificiality.<br /><br />Even viewing this strictly as a children's movie, it's very disappointing. It's not because it lacks action or special effects, although it does. The pace is much too slow, the situations repetitive. How many times can you watch Roy getting onto a bus? A comedy for kids should at least sometimes be madcap, with breakneck gags, otherwise you risk boring them (and any adults in the theater as well). Movies, even kid's movies, have improved quite a bit in the intervening decades. Even many contemporary comedies were better filmed and written. Disney's "The Love Bug," for instance, at least had some interesting race action. | 0neg
|
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Juggernaut is a British made "thriller" released in the US by First National. Karloff is Dr. Sartorius who has to leave his research because his funds have dried up. Karloff is forced to retreat to France and start up a medical practice. He is propositioned by a conniving woman who wants to get rid of her much older husband. She knows Karloff needs the money.<br /><br />Karloff agrees to the proposition and soon becomes the personal doctor of the husband. All the while, the wife is prancing about town with the local no good playboy. Karloff finally injects the old geyser with poison and he kicks off. However, his son (from another marriage) arrives a few days before the killing and finds out the will has been changed. When he spills the beans to the wife, she goes berserk and even bites the son's hand.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Karloff's nurse has misplaced the hypo Karloff used to kill the old man. When Karloff finds out he isn't getting any money, he asks the wife to poison the son. The nurse suspects Karloff and finds the missing hypo. Analysis shows poison, but not quite in time as Karloff kidnaps the nurse.<br /><br />To make a long story short, the nurse escapes, gets the police, and manages to save the son who is about to be injected by Karloff. Karloff instead injects himself and dies.<br /><br />This movie does have some good points. Karloff is possessed and plays the type of mad doctor he did in The Devil Commands and the Man Who Lived Again. It is peculiar, however, to see him walk around stiffly and slightly hunched over. We never find out why he is walking this way. I suspect the director thought it made him more sinister.<br /><br />The actress playing the 2-timing wife overacts something terrible. She has a French accent. Even though she overacts badly, you still manage to hate her (or maybe you hate her because of her acting...).<br /><br />A little below average for a Karloff vehicle. If you buy the Sinister Cinema VHS copy, the audio is a bit choppy. | 0neg
|
This has been put out on the DVD market by Alpha, and it's for die-hard Boris Karloff fans (like moi) only. It's not a horror flick, but a drama where Boris is a struggling scientist agreeing to kill a wealthy woman's husband in order to gain the fortune needed to continue with his work. But once the dying victim changes his will and leaves his spouse nothing, all hell breaks loose.<br /><br />It's appeasing enough seeing Karloff as another selfish sinister type, and some of the acting is unintentionally hilarious (especially from the leading lady Mona Goya who is absolutely a laugh riot as the double-crossed wife).<br /><br />But proceed with much caution. | 0neg
|
One of Boris Karloff's real clinkers. Essentially the dying Karloff (looking about 120 years older than he was)is a scientist in need of cash to finish his experiments before he dies. Moving from Morocco where his funding is taken over by someone else he goes to the South of France where he works a s physician while trying to scrap enough money to prove his theories. Desperate for money he makes a deal with the young rich wife of a cotton baron who is dying. She will fund him if he helps her poison the husband so she can take his money and carry on with a gigolo (who I think is married). If you think I got that from watching the movie you're wrong, I had to read what other people posted to figure out happened. Why? because this movie had me lost from two minutes in.I had no idea what was going on with its numerous characters and multiple converging plot lines. Little is spelled out and much isn't said until towards the end by which time I really didn't care. Its a dull mess of interest purely for Karloff's performance which is rather odd at times. To be honest this is the only time I've ever seen him venture into Bela Lugosi bizarre territory. Its not every scene but a few and makes me wonder how much they hung out. | 0neg
|
Way back when, the X-Files was an intelligent, thought-provoking show. A big part of its appeal was that the writers looked to folklore and science for their ideas, tying the plot to the spooky side of real life.<br /><br />I was incredibly wary of the 8th season when it aired. The show had already provided two perfectly good episodes to bow out on ("One Son" and "Requiem"), and the 7th season had seen a sharp rise in episodes that scraped the barrel for ideas that were far-fetched, implausible, or downright silly. But I figured, hey, give it the benefit of a doubt, maybe they're bringing it back because they've got some great ideas lined up.<br /><br />"Roadrunners" really was upsetting. Following "Patience", which at least offered an interesting angle on the vampire folklore that the show had done well to avoid, the episode sees a strange (alien?) parasitic slug with the power of mind control worshipped by a cult of backwoods Christians. Oh, and they think it's the second coming of Christ, but you only find that out in the last couple of minutes. Seriously. There's never *any* attempt to make sense of this, to explain what the slug is, why anything that's happening is happening, or anything. Even in the show's early years - in fact, *especially* then - you could expect a little bit more depth, a bit of background, or if not that then the opposite - a bit of mystery, some uncertainty about what this was all about. <br /><br />It's Scully that really kills it though. You could put up with the silliness of the premise, but to have a character who has been developed over a good 7 years as a rational skeptic transformed into a gullible maverick purely for the sake of advancing the plot is bizarre to watch. You feel like you're watching some godawful teen horror, except that it's a woman well into her thirties throwing herself into the kind of creepy isolated community that she's spent the best part of a decade uncovering the sinister underbelly of, being either outwitted by very stereotypical hicks or utterly indifferent to her own safety. Oh, and by the way, Doggett, the new Mudler, isn't around. Scully just wandered off into the desert to look into a brutal murder on her own without him. He shows up at the end to save the day - I can't even remember why - but apart from that, he's not really in it. Again: seriously.<br /><br />In short, it feels like either a generic script written for another show, or someone's pet movie project which they've been allowed to shove like a mutant leech into the spine of an existing, long-running show at a time when it was at its most vulnerable. It might've worked on a lesser show, where the characters are more archetypal and the audience expects less. But The X-Files had a good thing going, and Scully was one of the strongest and most idiosyncratic TV characters of the 90s. Deciding that you're going to change her personality for the sake of a story that they must've done on Star Trek a good fifty or so times is pointless. | 0neg
|
Ariauna Albright is a really good actress but why she participated in this lame written travesty is a mystery. What could have been entertaining winds up as classic boredom. The unique thing about Ariauna is that she can act as well as look real sexy as opposed to her partner Lilith Stabs who looks fine but it is obvious she spent the money for acting school at the spa or beautician. This was a production that cried out for some T & A & with a imaginative script writer could have achieved it in the flow of things. However Ariauna does what she can under the circumstances & to a extent salvages her reputation. The Tempe company should be aware that when you dress two attractive women in skimpy fetish cop uniforms the viewers will expect some fetish play & T & A. Nough said. | 0neg
|
I find it hard to understand why this piece of utter trash was repackaged. The only saving grace in the whole thing is the body of Ariauna in her sexy uniform. Her humour is also to be appreciated. She is a definite plus but alas it would take a magician to salvage this garbage. However she must be positively recognised for her heroic effort & true professionalism. Can't say the same for her co star Lilith with her whining voice that grates on your nervous system. Appeared disinterested & gave the impression that just her presence on the set was all that was needed. All said apart from Ariauna's performance it is indeed utter trash. | 0neg
|
It is difficult to find any positives in this movie. Seems as though the producer needed to make a buck without much effort & hence we are treated to a full showing of Galaxy which is the lamest excuse for a movie in history. The police girls looked extremely sexy in their little uniforms. More action shots of the two cops & a lot less of Galaxy would have been the way to go. Of course that would add to the budget so they decided to fill the space with that wretched rerun. Ms Albright does excellent looking sexy & her acting is first rate. Ms Stabs whom I had heard of but not seen on screen before also looked very desirable but seems to lack basic acting talent. Apart from Ms Albright this is real garbage. | 0neg
|
A group of human looking aliens going to Earth to eat crash land on a planet of prehistoric beasts instead where they all eat physcedelic mushrooms and act retarded. Padded with footage from "Planet of the Dinosuars" and horrible jokes this is definitely one to miss. The acting is atrocious as well, and while this isn't as bad as "Chickboxer" (what movie can be?) This is still pretty awful repugnant stuff. It's 90 minute running time feels like an eternity and you will likely be cursing life so do yourself a huge favor and just move on, skip this crappy film, there's nothing to see here.<br /><br />The film-makers try to resell this turd as a MST3K style making fun of the movie they made a decade before, and it works to an extent it's still nothing that watchable though, Ariauna Albright is hot, but Lilith Stabs has a pretty unattractive speaking voice.<br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />DVD Extras: Joke commentary, 17 Behind the scenes featurette; 7 minute Into the black featurette; Jessica Mills reporting; Stills gallery; and original trailer | 0neg
|
Using footage pillaged from Planet of Dinosaurs this shot on video (except for the stolen footage) concerns a bunch of people shot into space who land on a dinosaur planet that is...don't wait for it, is really earth. Its a five minute sketch stretched to 90 minutes. Slightly better than Chickboxer (another in the Bad Movie Police series)-having a nostalgic home movie feel coupled with good stolen effects, this movie is still an impossible slog to get through. I'm left to ponder the question are we becoming so uncreative that we're now pillaging old movies not only for plot but also for mismatched footage? Clearly low budget producers are getting so desperate they really will give us anything to take our money | 0neg
|
First of all let me say that I had to think a lot about writing a comment for this movie. The best review for this kind of Cinema can be just the silence. Movie addressed to housewives and to grandmothers. This movie tries to look "genuine" and the characters should be supposed "real people". An Italian could never think that the characters might be "real": they are just "low-profile" stereotypes. It gives a very misguised vision of what life is in the Italian countryside. The plot is weak (plot? which plot?) and the humour does not make laugh anyone older than 12. | 0neg
|
Wow, after trashing the disk of Timo Roses "Rout City" after about 15 Minutes (South Park is about more than meaningless cursing... I guess some people just don't get it) I was interested in this movie. I read quite some positive stuff and the packaging and look of the movie seemed far from the total trash I expected after "Rout city".<br /><br />Surprise: The movie isn't total trash but the problem seems to be exactly that. Timo Rose tries to walk in the footsteps of German Horror/Splatter Cinema like Olaf Ittenbach and the likes. That means "Barricade" is in parts extremely gory and detailed. The gore FX are not really believable but OK, the acting is OK but in some cases plain sucks. The hillbilly chick in the opening sequence is ridiculous and doesn't get better till she's shot.<br /><br />So what is the problem... the movie is gory, has a typical German underground vibe (including the classic booby shots in blood), OK FX and a modern feel to it like the packaging already promised?! <br /><br />1. The script is total BS. You get a typical hillbilly/lost in the woods story with some guys+gal camping out and meeting a degenerated hillbilly family. Everything is just leading towards the torture/mutilation scenes and seems unbelievably random and pointless. This is the first thing that makes "Barricade" half-hearted.<br /><br />2. Random is also the perfect description for a lot of the camera work (I liked the repetitive cut to the tweezers in the extended booby torture scene... either they had no material or the editor works in a hardware store). Even worse the editing... sure, its modern and far better than a lot of other movies in the genre but its RANDOM. You got an overuse of that typical exposure effect everywhere and with no meaning ... its just there... all the time. Then there's some grainy/noisy film look which also is just thrown in here and there for the sake of it, I don't get the meaning.<br /><br />3. Like the fore-mentioned effects there is a lot of repetitive stuff in here. For example most of the kills are edited with multiple repetitions of stabbing and punching. Its OK once but here its annoying and fake, especially towards the end. Annoying also attributes the "music" which is permanently used without any change in the background. It doesn't take long until it makes the movie hardly bearable.<br /><br />4. From all this comes the biggest problem of this movie (and many others in my opinion). If you make a splatter movie with trashy feel its pretty idiotic to polish it with special FX and new school editing. It looks like they take it way too serious. Its no fun because the decent gore FX are plain wasted in this context. And where the classic gore FX are OK the computer FX in scenes like the stabbing in the mouth or the gunshots in the ending look rather silly(and 3D splatter mostly sucks to me even in movies with a budget and decent 3D artists).<br /><br />I often wondered if the time of serious splatter movies is over and "Barricade" is just another example it might be time to put it in the tomb. Its no fun, has no character and is too trashy for its look. The script is a cheap try on "Wrong Turn" and "TCM" leading absolutely nowhere. You can take that literally... the ending is just there and as random as many other things here ("I love you" in a splatter flick... come on!!). "Barricade" tries to incorporate a lot and fails...you can sure fast-forward through this movie for some extensive disembowelment, acid face melting,nipple pinching and classic Friday the 13th style stabbing of a couple while fingering in a tent (bloody boobies hooray!). But its really hard to get through this. Total failure especially because you can see it could have been something. | 0neg
|
Well I just gave away 95 minutes and 47 seconds that I'll never get back on this piece of trash. I heard someone online describe this movie's villains as "subhuman cannibals", and I thought it was promising because I thought it would be like the Descent. WRONG! The Descent was a psychological thriller with dynamic characters and strong storyline. These villains are totally unrealistic and no part of their performance is enjoyable to watch. This movie isn't so controversial, I've seen this level of gore in many films. This movie plain sucks. SYNOPSIS: A blonde who thinks she's real hot (but she isn't), her admirer, and her admirer's friend (no, I don't remember their names) go into the woods. Their car breaks down. They are warned to leave by a man named Mark. The blonde gets unreasonably hysterical and the next morning they can't find the admirer's friend. Admirer impales his foot (whoops!). Don't worry, he is much more upset when his car won't start than when he gets impaled by nails. After a nanosecond of coaxing, the blond leaves to find help. Events ensue that I cannot remember. During this and throughout the movie, we are shown grotesque torture scenes with no substance including one that made me gag. Blonde goes to save admirer from house of cannibals (even though all they are seen eating is intestines, which would logically be the last choice for real cannibals to eat since they contain actual food). Blonde finds admirer hurt and works very hard (unsuccessfully) to work up tears. Then you get a good laugh when the blonde is in the house and announces she can "out think them". Mark (the man who warned them to leave) has a remarkable change of character when he reveals the cannibals are his family. Then there is some shooting, they leave the house, the shooting continues, then a random guy shows up and says he's been watching them. Before he is shot, we are shown an acid-trip inspired scene of more killing. The blonde or her admirer shoots him because he did not help them. There's more killing, the admirer professes his love for the blonde. Then a mysterious hand covers the camera. What does that imply? I don't know, hopefully not a sequel. | 0neg
|
A group of friends come face-to-face with a family of hideous cannibals whilst camping in the beautiful German countryside.<br /><br />The 'mutant cannibal family' concept is almost as old as the hills that the inbred freaks often call home, so any director attempting to breath new life into the genre needs to come up with something pretty darn special in order to impress. With Barricade, Timo Rose tries to give the well-worn routine a Teutonic twist, by transplanting the action to The Black Forest and giving it the German low-budget splatter treatment. The result is a very bloody, but totally unoriginal effort that is made almost unwatchable thanks to some dreadful directorial decisionsin particular, the non-stop use of fancy filters and irritating editing techniques.<br /><br />Had Timo Rose not opted to utilise every naff trick his editing software offered him, then Barricade might have been a reasonably entertaining gore-fest: his inexperienced cast do reasonably well; the bloody effects are suitably stomach churning; and there are one or two scares and even some well conceived creepy moments. All of this, however, is completely ruined by the awful camera-work, choppy editing, and overwhelming barrage of visual gimmickry used to give the film the distressed look that is so inexplicably popular with today's film-makers.<br /><br />I give Barricade 3 out of 10 purely for the outlandish gore, which includes a nifty scene where a guy is forced to drink acid, loads of nasty wounds caused by a variety of sharp implements, and some pretty decent shotgun damage. | 0neg
|
As I am not a blood and guts fan I found the gory scenes totally unnecessary (you spell it) and too real for my liking, if you're the type of person who gets their rocks off on beheadings on the internet or snuff movies I say go for it, it beggars belief what sort of person dreams this sick crap up though.<br /><br />Apart from that it had the potential to be a great movie, the music was top class too (through the movie and especially the end credits). Some parts though were a bit unbelievable, like you've just been found by your girlfriend trust up awaiting torture and death and all you do is tell her about what had happened and how you got there, (why didn't he ask her if she happened to have any wipes or even some air freshner or a piece of gum while he was at it?), come on now, most would probably just scream "hurry up and untie me then lets get the f*** out of here QUICK!". where were the flys, maggots etc, and when the girl accidentally came across the place surely the stench of rotten flesh would have sounded a few alarm bells! I would only recommend this movie to friends of Dennis Niellson and the like, I'm sure a video like this would make sickos like that have a very happy Christmas. | 0neg
|
Horrible. I see many user comments on how great this show is. It truly is a Wanna-Be-Friends - Made in Taiwan knockoff. The jokes are lame as...and the plot is ridiculous. The actors are obviously struggling to be funny and are probably cringing when they hit those awful punchlines (if you can call them that). The bulk of the other users who have commented are obviously from another planet (or at least another continent). There are obviously reasons that TV companies cancel shows...and none of then are when shows are doing well. Make sense? Anyway, steer clear - even if it is raining and there is absolutely nothing else on this planet to do...go stand in the rain instead - more fun. | 0neg
|
this show is awful. no comedy, no plot no good characters. America are you blind give the award to real shows. i hate this show along with 30 rock. honestly I'm so glad they canceled this show. thank you CBS. keep two and a half men, keep Christine, keep rules of engagement keep how i meet your mother which really isn't funny but a lot funnier than this. this show is a rip off of friends. with the same director so thats okay. but keep this show gone and never bring it back. never ever ever ever. the only reason i didn't give it a 1 rating is because it keep my awake instead of asleep. those are the types of movies or TV shows that i give a one. the only reason i was still awake was because of the audiences laughter and i was looking forward to the next show. i really wish this show was funny sorry but my opinion stupid. very stupid. i don't see why everyone loves it. my opinion again. but i also find big bang theory kinda stupid. my bad smart. the class bye bye now i have a smile and it is not from watching your show. | 0neg
|
The Class is a comedy series that portrays a bunch of 27-year-old former class mates.<br /><br />I like the idea of the show. That's why it saddens me that The Class is not funny, even though it has the obvious potential. It's not enough corky, just dorky. (Haha.) This is due to a slowish tempo and the lack of actually hilarious punch lines. Also some actors have difficulties with timing.<br /><br />Most inventively written characters are the twins Kat and Lina Warbler (Lizzy Caplan and Heather Goldenhersh) but even they seem just a little too square for the good of the show. On the other hand the characters I find most uninteresting are the main character Ethan and the used-to-be- couple Duncan and Nicole.<br /><br />What bothers me with the series is that the only Latino character Aaron is being picked on for his accent (even though by a non-respectable character, but anyway). | 0neg
|
If you have seen Friends, the writing will feel very familiar. Especially the last 3 or 4 seasons of Friends often share the same comedy setups.<br /><br />The show is about a group of people whose connection is that they shared the same class when they were still rather young (about 10 years old I think). Now, they're in their mid-twenties, and they meet again on a class reunion. This is where the series starts.<br /><br />A typical episode deals with multiple story lines at once. They're usually not connected in any way. Each story line is cut up into multiple sections, which are then shown in a mixed order.<br /><br />The sketches is where my problems lie with this series. As in the later seasons of Friends, it's often a rather silly setting with hard to believe situations. One of the main characters does something really stupid that's hard to believe. The situation is then heavily exaggerated, as if it wasn't silly enough. If you're into this kind of in-your-face humor, then maybe you'll like this series. For me it is a great turn-off.<br /><br />The reason I started watching Friends is because of the first few seasons. There are interesting and especially credible story lines, with some romance in it that makes you root for the characters. The Class has none of this. The characters are simply too forced and stereotypes are pushed too far. It's therefore not possible to relate to them and like them.<br /><br />At least with friends, it took several seasons before it ran out of steam and the character traits were all milked out. But in The Class, it seems it has run out of steam before it even started. | 0neg
|
You can't imagine how I looked forward to King of the Ants. As a massive Gordon fan, I awaited the European premiere with wicked anticipation.especially since I loved Dagon - Gordon's last achievement - so much. King of the Ants premiered here in my country and it was Gordon himself who came to present it. Unfortunately, I couldn't go and congratulate him for it afterwards. King of the Ants is his most uninspired and mediocre film to date. Really, the quality level never surpassed ordinary TV-thriller standards. The plot outline is terribly routine and with the exception of a few poor scenes, the typical Gordon-touch is never recognized. On top of that, the already weak script has more holes than a Swiss bowl of cheese! It involves a young wannabe-crook who's hired to commit a murder. So he does.and of course they're not paying him.and of course he falls in love with the victim's wife.and of course he avenges himself.. Only the sequences in which the guy descents in a spiral of madness are worth a mention and they're the only ones reminding you of the fact you're still watching a Stuart Gordon film. The acting performances are below average with McCenna as the heroic lowlife, George `Norm Peterson' Wendt as the chubby bastard and Kari Wuhrer as the good-hearted sex bomb. Extremely illogical things happen constantly and the dullness of the story becomes irritating very quickly, while the make-up effects aren't enough to even satisfy amateur-horror fans. I read a few other comments on King of the Ants, claiming it's Gordon's best since it finally is a thought-provoking and mature film.Well, if that's the case.I rather stay immature and give Re-Animator another viewing, thank you very much. Oh well, I guess every good director runs out of steam and inspiration eventually.too bad it also overcame Stuart Gordon. | 0neg
|
This movie was an attempt to go into places most don't and perhaps shouldn't venture into. It was a similar trial at the bizarre, head-case perspective given to us in The Cell, although not near as in-depth and well portrayed. The plot is constructed simply with an initial campy feel to it. Then, as the movie takes its supposed "dramatic" turn, the plot falls apart on what few legs it had to stand on in the first place. <br /><br />Basically the idea is that of a kid (Chris McKenna) who needs money. He takes on the role of a hit man, killing a city accountant. Then he doesn't get paid for his work but instead gets tortured for several days because he dreamed up the "brilliant" idea of trying to use a backup file he had as leverage for payment. This idiotic move at trying to force them to pay him backfires as he is horribly and endlessly abused. He begins to go crazy (some very disturbing scenes). Then, thinking he has paid for his sins and can start over, he visits the wife (Kari Wuhrer) of the man who he killed and wins her affections. Soon after she discovers who he is, tragedy strikes, and revenge sweeps through the air as the boy goes after his torturers (Daniel Baldwin, George Wendt, Vernon Wells) for their previous "kindness".<br /><br />I got to ask though, what is it with Kari Wuhrer and horror/gore type films?<br /><br />It seems everything she has put out lately has been in this genre. Granted, I liked her in "Eight-Legged Freaks" and she was okay in "Anaconda". But despite all her obvious cuteness and allure (wow, she's hot!), she can act much better and chose better roles. Or maybe, I'm wrong and that is just a misconception. For all you guys out there, you get to see the "fully monty" of her in this film, although it's rather bizarre and short-lived. I almost felt like she did some soft-porn after watching this film (something not foreign to Kari's career). The sex-simulation is such that it has to make you wonder what things really go on during filming. <br /><br />Anyway, I will say there is some good acting. Just don't expect much of it from Daniel Balwin, whose career seems forever destined to second his brother Alex's. The film did bring out a few old greats though, George Wendt (Norm from Cheers) and Vernon Wells (Commando, Weird Science). Above all, Chris McKenna does the best job in playing the main character, Sean Crawley. His little acting experience and yet his believable nature as a naive youth, bring some elements of substance to the film. <br /><br />I wouldn't go out of my way for this one. If you're bored and are tired of the same old episodes of "The Hitchhiker", then I might advise watching this.<br /><br />And Kari, please start acting in some better films! | 0neg
|
This movie is written by Charlie Higson, who has before this done the "legendary" Fast Show and his own show based on one of Fast Show's characters (Tony the car sales man). He's also written James Bond books for kids.<br /><br />Actually I've seen before this only Gordon's movies that are based on Lovecraft's stories, and every one of those is marvelous. Here Gordon tries to do something different. The style is totally "contemporary", which means shaky camera, fast and strange cutting, cool chillout music in the background. It works quite well here, I guess, but it's still pointless and cheap. It makes me often think of the cameraman who's shaking his dv-camera in front of the actors/actresses and try to make stylish moves in the pictures (hoping that something tolerable would come out of it). The casting is good, and there is a whole atmosphere, which is the result of good directing. I think the main character, the "zero" young guy, is quite interesting in his "zeroness". The fat guy is also good. And the guy who looks like Alec Baldwin, but is not him. But pretty soon after the beginning the movie turns out to be something not-so-interesting: In this case I mean an endless line of scenes of sadism and sickness. There is not much humanity in this film/story: It's totally pessimistic, and every person in this movie is disgusting and hopeless, or soon dead. Needless to say that there is no humor either. It's a 1'40 long vomit without no relief in any moment. Anyway, Gordon remains to me one of the most interesting movie makers that are active today, and I think of this movie as an experiment, and as a failure in that. Everyone has to experience getting lost sometimes, just to learn and to find their way again. This might be Gordon's most uninteresting and empty work. | 0neg
|
I must pat myself on the back for watching this movie all the way through because it truly was painful. An incapable painter becomes a fully capable hit-man? This movie was rife with absurdities of which if I mentioned them all I would be giving away the movie. Norm Peterson aka George Wendt must really be in a rut to have agreed to do this movie. The acting was deplorable and the story was even worse. As a sane minded and rational individual, I could not understand where the writer came from nor where he was going with this movie. There was ineptness on the part of every main character, there was a string of hapless and ridiculous events, then the movie ended. One absurd act after another with dialogue doesn't make a movie, it only makes a talkative train wreck. | 0neg
|
I was p***ed when I couldn't see this one when it was screening at the Philly Film Fest last year, so when I saw that it was going to be on cable tonight, I put it on remind as soon as I could. So was it worth the wait? Well let's backtrack a tad as I have yet to give you the plot. Sean Crawley is a young man who doesn't know what his path in life is. Enter Duke (George Wendt) who introduces him to his boss Ray (Danny Baldwin). One night Ray totally hammered asks Sean to off the guy that they had Sean following around. And it goes on from there. Which leads me back to the question posed. Was it worth the wait? Yes and no, the buildup was pretty good and George Wendt stole the movie for me. He just took the ball and ran with it. But it's nowhere near as violent as I was led to believe and somewhere along the movies running time the ball is not only dropped, but fumbled and taken in the other direction. I know where this point happened exactly, but can't say without spoiling the film. But needless to say it happened. The ending doesn't save the film either. Poor Stuart Gordon nothing can be good like "Re-animator" or "Castle Freak".<br /><br />My Grade: C<br /><br />Where I saw it: Showtime Extreme<br /><br />Eye Candy: Kari Wuhrer shows her ta-tas in one fantasy and then in the next more ta-tas and it pans down and...OH MY GOD MY EYES MY EYES!!!!! | 0neg
|
A film without conscience. Drifter agrees to kill a man for a mobster for money. Then they double cross him. Meanwhile he falls in love with the dead man's wife, and, without her knowing he's the killer, moves in with her. Then he "accidentally" kills her when she finds out. Then, in a WALKING TALL kind of heroism, he gets revenge on the mobsters who double crossed him. The first problem is that, by agreeing to take on the murder by hire assignment, the drifter loses all sense of sympathy, worthiness, and heroism. We can't accept any goodness in him and as a result the rest of the has no moral center. We just can't care about that kind of guy. And the wife (nicely played by the fetching Kari Wuhrer - the sheriff in EIGHT LEGGED FREAKS), a high class lady who runs a mission for homeless people, similarly loses a degree of sympathy by jumping right into bed with the homeless drifter (despite her evidently weakened state after the death of her husband). And, when she finds out he's the guy what does she do? She locks him inside her house (as if ALL houses had locks you can't open from INSIDE) with her and proceeds to berate him. Stoo-pid. George Wendt, however, is terrific in a role as a beefy thug. Director Stuart Gordon did so much better with RE-ANIMATOR and DAGON. | 0neg
|
I don't know anything of the writer's or the director's earlier work so I hadn't brought any prejudices to the film. Based on the brief description of the plot in TV Guide I thought it might be interesting.<br /><br />But implausibility was piled upon implausibility. Each turn of the plot seemed to be an excuse to drag in more bloodshed, gruesome makeup, or special effects.<br /><br />The score was professional and Kari Wuhrer seems like a decent actress but the rest was more than disappointing. It was positively repulsive.<br /><br />I will not go through the vagaries of the narrative but I'll give an example of what I think of as an excess of explicit gore.<br /><br />Chris McKenna goes to an isolated ranch house and pulls the frozen body of his earlier victim (Wendt) out of the deep freeze. McKenna had killed Wendt by biting a chunk out of his neck. Now he feels he must destroy the evidence of his involvement in Wendt's demise. (What are the cops going to do, measure his bite radius?) McKenna unwraps Wendt's head and neck from the freezer bag it's in, takes an ax, and begins to chop off Wendt's head. Whack. Whack. Whack. The bit of the ax keeps chipping away at Wendt's neck. The air is filled with nuggets of flying frozen flesh, one of which drops on McKenna's head. (He brushes it off when he's done.) McKenna then takes the frozen head outside to a small fire he's built. He sits the head on the ground, squats next to it, takes out some photos of a woman he's just killed, and shows them to Wendt's head. "Remember her? We could have really made it if it hadn't been for you guys," he tells the head. "Duke, you've always liked bonfires, haven't you?" he asks. Then he places the head on the fire. We only get a glimpse of it burning but we can hear the fat sizzling in the flame.<br /><br />I don't want this sort of garbage to be censored. I'm only wondering who enjoys seeing this stuff.<br /><br />There's no reason to go on with the rest of the movie. Well, I'll mention one example of an "implausibility," since I brought the idea up. McKenna has been kidnapped and locked in a dark bare shack. He knows he's going to be clobbered half to death in the following days. (He's literally invited the heavies to do it.) What would you do in this Poe-like situation? Here's what McKenna does on what may turn out to be the last night of his life. He finds a discarded calendar with a pin-up girl on it and masturbates (successfully). Give that man the Medal of Freedom! <br /><br />A monster who looks like Pizza the Hut is thrown into some unnecessary flashbacks. The camera is often hand held and wobbly. The dialog has lines like, "Life is a piece of s***. Or else it's the best of all possible worlds. It depends on your point of view." Use is made of a wide angle lens that turns ordinary faces into gargoyle masks. A house blows up in an explosive fireball at the end while the hero, McKenna, walks towards us in the foreground.<br /><br />Some hero he is, too. He first kills a man for $13,000 by bashing him over the head several times with a heavy statue, then a potted plant, before finally tipping a refrigerator over onto the body. (This bothers him a little, but not enough to keep him from insisting on payment.) Then, I hope I have the order straight, he kills Wendt by ripping out part of his neck. Then he kills the wife of his first victim by accident and blames the heavies for it, although by almost any moral calculus they had nothing to do with it. Next he burns the head honcho (Baldwin) alive. Then, having disabled the two lesser heavies, he deliberately blows them up, though one of them isn't entirely unsympathetic. And we're supposed to be rooting for McKenna.<br /><br />These aren't cartoon deaths like those in the Dirty Harry movies either -- bang bang and you're dead. These are slow and painful. The first one -- the murder for $13,000 -- is done clumsily enough to resemble what might happen in real life. It isn't really easy to kill another human being, as Hitchcock had demonstrated in Torn Curtain. But that scene leads to no place of any importance.<br /><br />Some people might enjoy this, especially those young enough to think that pain and death are things that happen only in movies. Some meretricious stuff on screen here. | 0neg
|
I read all these reviews on here about how this is a such a good movie. Jeez, this movie was predictable and pretty boring. The acting was below average most of the time, especially by Mckenna. I haven't seen a more pathetic attempt at making someone "badass" in a movie. Oh man, this movie was a letdown. I also read somewhere this might be a cult classic. I know there are followers of the director, but this movie was just a average piece of film.<br /><br />The script was lame, for the most part the acting was lame, this movie was lame.<br /><br />Oh and pray for the guy that used to be in Cheers. He looks really bad. <br /><br />The best actor in this movie was probably the guy in Office Space, and he was only in this movie for about 8 minutes.<br /><br />4/10 | 0neg
|
The proverb "Never judge a book by it's cover", was coined as a warning to those who fail to look beneath the surface. <br /><br />As I viewed the artwork to,"King of the Ants" I instantly thought HORROR! The arcane imagery proudly displayed on the cover & back spoke of a dark vision, the synopsis promised a story of murder, betrayal, & retribution. Instead what I discovered beneath that surface, was less interesting than what you can find under your average rock.<br /><br />"King of the Ants" features Chris L. McKenna as Sean Crawley, an average guy ready to make a name for himself in this world, even if it means murder. Except Sean Crawley is someone you don't care about, never once did I feel any compassion or sympathy for this character. In fact he's downright unlikable, but not as much as Daniel Baldwin (Ray Mathews)who turns in an uninspired performance as a made all the worst by the utterly laughable dialogue he is forced to recite. Throw in Kari Wuhrer as a grieving widow who apparently has unconditional trust (esp. in the homeless), and little to no common sense, and George Wendt as Duke, which is basically a sober Norm from Cheers but MEAN!<br /><br />Now there are a couple of interesting "hallucination" sequences in this film (the source of the cover images) but this film never delves further into that world. It prefers to bombard you with unmotivated characters, bad dialogue, and unlikely event after unlikely event. Oh the Horror! | 0neg
|
The wife of a stage producer in London hopes to fix up the American song-and-dance man starring in her husband's latest show with an acquaintance, an American girl who makes her living modeling fashions in society circles. Unfortunately, the couple has already met on their own, with the girl thinking the guy is actually the show producer married to her friend (the fact he's not wearing a wedding ring should have discouraged any misunderstandings!). Wafty Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers musical is eventually dragged back down to the earth by Dwight Taylor and Allan Scott's idiotic script, which is full of juvenile behavior. Astaire and Rogers don't just 'meet cute'--they meet ridiculously (he's tap-dancing like a madman in the hotel suite above hers and she complains). Audiences of 1935 probably didn't care how these two were going to get together--as long as they did so, and happily. Seen today, the central characters appear to have no motivation to end up in each other's arms: he plies her with flowers (after telling his friend he wants to remain "fancy free" in the love department) and she gives him the brush-off. Nothing that a little dancing couldn't cure! This glamorous twosome are as deliberately unreal as are the London and Venice settings, but we watch simply because the leads are Fred and Ginger. It's a fantasy for have-nots...ones who don't mind the dumbed-down plot. The musical moments do break up the monotony of the contrived scenario, yet fail to transcend the surrounding silliness. ** from **** | 0neg
|
Having endured this inaccurate movie I will admit that it is a more modern telling of the story than previous versions. Yet, it is so inaccurate and has has been made so politically correct that it made me mad after watching it. Davy Crockett was very poorly represented by Billy Bob, who I thought would have probably been better cast as Sam Houston given both men's love of oratory. I think self-absorbed Dennis Quaid(an actual Texan) would have been a perfect Crockett and it would have definitely fed into his starved sense of self-worship. As a Texan and a true believer in the Texas mindset I feel Davy Crockett was the quintessential Texan even though not born here. Our unofficial motto is "It ain't braggin' if it is a fact" was made for Crockett. And that last scene at the Alamo where Crockett is the last survivor has to be the biggest insult to Davy Crockett ever made. To even suggest that this giant of a man and seasoned fighter would allow himself to be taken alive is ridiculous. Three different eye witness accounts place him dead amid the bodies of a dozen or more dead Mexican soldiers after undoubtedly fierce hand to hand combat. Finally, that lame ending to the movie supposedly depicting the battle of San Jacinto as a mutual battle of 600 Texicans vs 700 Mexican Soldiers when there was actually closer to 1,500 well trained Mexican regulars. Every Texas school kid who pays attention in their first Texas history class knows the battle took the Mexican Army by surprise during siesta time and the Mexican army was so confused they could not form ranks and fled as they were not trained to fight frontier style hand to hand. | 0neg
|
A question for you : A family go to a new house and get stalked by demonic forces . Which film am I talking about ? Every horror film you`ve seen ? Yes that`s true but that`s not the answer I`m looking for . I`ll narrow it down by saying there`s a lot of teen angst scenes . Doesn`t help ? Well there`s lots of bits where the characters are stalked by a creature and you see the characters through the creature`s POV . No futher forward ? Okay there`s a dream sequence involving lots of blood ? Could still be any horror film you say . Oh gawd this could take weeks so I`ll say the film I`m talking about features loads of Aussies many of whom have appeared in NEIGHBOURS and HOME AND AWAY . Yes that`s right the film is THE THIRD CIRCLE ( aka CUBBYHOUSE ) and do you understand what the above exercise is about ? It`s about me pointing out how THE THIRD CIRCLE is absolutely no different from any horror film that`s been made | 0neg
|
Suffice it to say that this substandard B has nothing to save it - not an interesting plot or even one tolerably decent actor. Josh Leonard of Blair Witch fame does little to help matters. Do yourself a favor and leave this one on the shelf at your local video store. | 0neg
|
I had numerous problems with this film.<br /><br />It contains some basic factual information concerning quantum mechanics, which is fine. Although quantum physics has been around for over 50 years, the film presents this information in a grandiose way that seems to be saying: "Aren't you just blown away by this!" Well, not really. These aren't earth shattering revelations anymore. At any rate, I was already familiar with quantum theory, and the fact that particles have to be described by wave equations, etc. is not new.<br /><br />The main problem I have with this movie, however, is the way these people use quantum theory as a way of providing a scientific basis for mysticism and spiritualism. I don't have any serious problem with mysticism and spiritualism, but quantum mechanics doesn't really have anything to do with these things, and it should be kept separate. The people they interviewed for this movie start with the ideas of quantum theory and then make the leap to say that simply by thinking about something you can alter the matter around you, hence we should think positively so as to have a positive impact on the world and make our lives better. The reasoning is completely ridiculous, and the conclusions do not logically follow from quantum theory. For every so called "expert" that they interviewed for this film, there are scores of theoretically physicists who would completely disagree. They would point out, quite rightly, that the unpredictability of the subatomic world does not lend support to mystical notions about our spiritual connectedness.<br /><br />It disturbs me that people are going to see this film and completely eat it up because it leaves them with a nice positive feeling. The main thrust of the film is based on a total misinterpretation of quantum theory, and it is as bad in its reasoning as any attempt to justify organized religion with similar pseudo-scientific arguments.<br /><br />Avoid this film.<br /><br />Oh yeah. At one point, one of the "experts" says that since throughout history most of the assumptions people have made about the world turned out to be false, therefore the assumptions we currently hold about the world are also likely to be false. Huh? That totally does not follow. And even if it did, I don't see how that helps his argument. I mean, if his ideas ever became common assumptions then I guess we would have to assume that they are false too, based on his own reasoning. | 0neg
|
As a physics student, I've become aware of many idiot professors, and other so-called experts, in the field. As I continue with my studies, I learn more and more about real physics experiments going on, and about the people who are doing things right.<br /><br />Then, my friends tell me of this "physics movie" they want to see. Knowing nothing of it, I'm excited, hoping that the information will be presented well.<br /><br />I've done REAL quantum mechanics; this wasn't it.<br /><br />This movie starts with the basic assumption that anything that occurs to a subatomic particle can, and will, occur to you, if you just open your eyes. Let's think about that, for just a moment.<br /><br />Our bodies are composed of somewhere around 10^30 such subatomic particles. That is a million billion billion billion particles! The more "mysterious" quantum effects of just two particles can have a 50% probability of cancelling each other out completely. As you add more and more particles into the mix, it becomes almost impossible to have a large net quantum result. To tell us to believe that this is a valid assumption, with no rationality behind it...it's just stupid.<br /><br />My friend, also in physics, and I counted 3 facts during the course of this movie. But they were presented in the most misleading manner I've EVER SEEN.<br /><br />I cannot say as much for the neural portion of the movie, as I have not had any kind of medical training. It seemed as though it might have had a slight bit more truth to it, remembering my days in biology, but I cannot say.<br /><br />At least this film had a redeeming quality: the dancing peptides (or whatever they actually were) scene. Not to ruin the invaluable plot that drives this movie, but the main character goes to a wedding, where she sees all different types of personalities "driven" by their peptides*, and then the film cuts to the dance floor, where we are spliced between people dancing, sometimes surrounded by CG peptides, and a fully CG scene, filled with dancing peptides. The film, at that point, was trying to tell us how we're "addicted to emotions," so we're treated to the full song of that smash hit, "Addicted to Love."<br /><br />This scene was redeeming, because anyone who could go through THAT scene, and still take this movie seriously...well, you are the ones that need to "open your eyes." | 0neg
|
This movie made me very angry. I wanted desperately to throttle the "scientists" and unseen film-makers during the course of it. Very, very painful to sit through. Sophomoric and pretentious in the worst way. The little good information on brain function/chemistry and quantum theory is lost in a sea of new agey horse sh*t. The worst offenders were the crack-pot charlatans Ramtha and Joseph Dispenza. Mr. Dispenza informs us that most people lead lives of mediocrity and clearly implies that he, on the other hand, is living on a higher plane. Even the ideas and attitudes that I basically agree with are presented in such a heavy handed, clumsy, superior, pretentious, preachy manner that I felt the desire to disavow them. I think that's what made me so angry, the fact that they've taken what are indeed profound aspects of established scientific thought and marred them with their new age hokum. Much of it is based around the fallacy of applying concepts of quantum theory to the macro world. Fittingly, the dramatized portions with Marlee Matlin are amateurish and cliché ridden.<br /><br />I would refer people instead to Bill Bryson's excellent survey of science: "A Brief History of Nearly Everything." There's plenty of profound wonder about life and the universe in the actual, established science. | 0neg
|
It seems the makers of this film had trouble deciding what their message really was. Consequently, they had even more trouble delivering it. They began by poorly describing principles of quantum physics which relate to sub-atomic particles. Having established a fuzzy picture of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, they presented a barrage of talking heads who built a case of ridiculous logic intimating that every living person is an entity which follows the same quantum rules on a cosmic scale. Then there was a lot of talk about ideas upon which Stephen Covey and Tony Robbins have made their careers: positive thinking, interrupting bad patterns, always look on the bright side, etc. Next came a bit about how our brains can change our bodies through production of proteins: hormones which we more or less choose to create. If you are sad, you will create sad proteins. If you are happy, you will create happy proteins. It's just so simple, isn't it? Interwoven with our lessons we follow the fictitious life of Amanda, a photographer who pops anti-depressants and hates her thighs. The film makers slowly but surely were trying to get us all to say, "Hey, Amanda, just cheer up!" Why can't she cheer up? Obviously it's because the world is a BAD place where there is crime and poverty and religion, that's why. The conclusion of the film (which is basically the entire second half) brought on a barrage of contradiction. We are all a part of a whole energy where we are not beings, but a collective consciousness, but we are individuals who can change the world, but there are many of each of us because of all the different dimensions, but we can choose who we are, and we have a purpose to do good, but there is no god because there is nothing better than us, so there is no such thing as right and wrong, so there is no such thing as reward or punishment, so nothing good ever came out of religion, but we should still do good anyway, even though there is no such thing as bad and good because there is nobody to decide what that is, except for the fact that we each can make life good if we all meditate, and then crime will cease, and if we say nice things, our water will freeze into pretty shapes. Still with me? Good because there is more. According to Robert L. Park in his book "Voodoo Science", the whole meditation experiment put on by John Hagelin in Washington, D.C. was a farce, the numbers were doctored, and the murder rate was higher that year that any year before or since. And what about your positive attitude keeping you young and healthy? This was a message delivered by an older man who looked his age and a woman who was overweight.<br /><br />So does all this work or not? I was lucky enough to see the film at a theater where Betsy Chasse, one of the film's three directors (yes, three) fielded questions following the show. I call myself lucky because I had first-hand confirmation that these people don't know what they are talking about. Several of the questions asked by audience members had her so stumped that her husband, a chiropractor, had to step in and recite the answer. I finally had to leave when the discussion inevitably turned political, and everyone, including Ms. Chasse, began speculating as to how wonderful the world would be if only President Bush could see this movie. | 0neg
|
Anyone who has studied any physics or cognitive science will walk out disgusted after 40 min., as my wife and I did. The ignorant masses might be entertained by the hand-waiving arguments and the absurd "conclusions" drawn (without even an attempt at a logical reason) from real science. I'm offended by such nonsense presented under the guise of "science". I can only conclude that the writers picked up a quantum physics book, didn't understand a word of it, then watched The Matrix about a thousand times, and proceeded to write this movie.<br /><br />For example, the Washington DC crime experiment was done by The Transcendental Meditation Program. A brief search will reveal the science of their methods. (http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/t/tm/dissenter.htm)<br /><br />Save your money. | 0neg
|
Remember the chain-smoking channeler exposed on 60 Minutes a few years ago? This is her. Lots of folks reviewed this movie without checking the bona fides of the filmmakers. The producers have been using phony "word of mouth" promotions very successfully without disclosing the financial and philosophical underpinnings for this piece of marketing tripe. If you believe in channeling, reincarnation, new age dreck and day-old baloney, this film is for you. If you want a discussion of quantum physics or reality, look elsewhere. The purpose of this movie is to convince you that Ramtha isn't a wacko, so you'll give her a bunch of your money. If you can tiptoe through the Ramtha website without howling in disbelief, then maybe you'll think the bucks you dropped on this infomercial for insanity was well spent. <http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=ANSWERMAN> | 0neg
|
I created my own reality by walking out of the theater I was roped in by my girlfriend into going to this dreck with her mom. We (my g-friend and I) walked out about an hour into it. What a load of pseudo scientific new age jargon.<br /><br />Sub atomic particles are thoughts? By taping labels to bottles of water and blessing it by a Buddhist monk it grew little pretty crystals? A drop of 25% in the murder rate in DC happened when a bunch of folks meditated. Wow, what a rigorous scientific study. I'm sure that someone ate cheerios for four days straight during the same time. Should we conclude that eating cheerios caused a drop in the murder rate? <br /><br />Hogwash, hooey, bull pucky! <br /><br />BTW- It was funded by the Ramtha cult, the leader of which was one of the "experts" which were interview by the filmmakers. No ulterior motives here, right? | 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.