text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Well, what can I say.<br /><br />"What the Bleep do we Know" has achieved the nearly impossible - leaving behind such masterpieces of the genre as "The Postman", "The Dungeon Master", "Merlin", and so fourth, it will go down in history as the single worst movie I have ever seen in its entirety. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is impressive indeed, for I have seen many a bad movie.<br /><br />This masterpiece of modern cinema consists of two interwoven parts, alternating between a silly and contrived plot about an extremely annoying photographer, abandoned by her husband and forced to take anti-depressants to survive, and a bunch of talking heads going on about how quantum physics supposedly justifies their new-agy pseudo-philosophy. Basically, if you start your day off meditating to the likes of Enya and Kenny G, this movie is for you. If you have a sense of humor, a crowd of people who know how to have fun, and a sizable portion of good weed, then this movie is for you as well. Otherwise, stay away. Take my word for it.<br /><br />The first thing that struck me about "What the Bleep do you Know" is that is seemed to be edited and put together by the same kinds of people that shoot cheap weddings on camera, complete with pink heart effects, computer-generated sparkles across the screen, and other assorted silliness. Who let these people anywhere near a theatrical release is a mystery to me. I guess this is what too much Kenny G does to you. The movie was permeated with cheesy GCI, the likes that you or I can produce on our own computer via over-the-counter video editing software, but never would, because it's just way too ridiculous.<br /><br />The script was _obviously_ written by someone with no writing experience whatsoever. Not only were all the characters and conversations cumbersome and contrived beyond belief, but the "writers" felt like they had to shove every relevant piece of information, or rather disinformation, which is what most of this movie was all about, all the way down your throat. Well, given the target audience, that may not have been too bad of an idea. The main character, for example, spends half the movie popping pills. Apparently, though, it was deemed not convincing enough, so there are at least a couple of dialogs in throughout, which refer to her anti-anxiety pills specifically, just in case the viewers should not be able to connect her overacted pain and suffering with little white pills she takes whenever she feels down. The acting... Well, I've seen better acting in Ed Wood movies, and no, this is not an exaggeration. Heck, the little play I was in when I was 12 featured much more inspiring acting than this. It really did.<br /><br />The story is interrupted here and there with a bunch or random talking heads, a strange mix of kooky scientists, kooky doctors, and self-proclaimed mystics, go on and on about how quantum physics supposedly provides an "explanation" for how ever man or woman created their own reality just by participating in the experience of life. Reality, you see, is a probability-field of a bunch of different possibilities, and is only set in stone once you the Observer chose to notice it. What happens when more than one Observer Observes they didn't say, but then again who cares. Listen to Enya, meditate, Observe, and you shall be God, and nobody gives a damn about such silly and archaic things as critical thinking, logic, etc. All reason is immediately dismissed as people being stuck in their ways and unable to achieve a "paradigm shift" and "go down the rabbit hole". Furthermore, the Heidelberg Uncertainty Principle supposedly is proof positive of alternate realities, parallel universes, and such.<br /><br />Speaking of rabbit holes, the analogy permeates the movie. All of these people keep talking about going down rabbit holes. I'm not sure what that had to do with anything else they were saying or showing, but one thing I'm certain of is that it somehow involves anal sex. Actually, the movie is _extremely_ anti-sex. Throughout, sex is presented as dirty, ugly, and anti-enlightening.<br /><br />In any case, the talking heads talk, the main character achieves harmony and enlightenment by painting hearts all over her body with a magic marker, and proceeds to walk around with an even stupider look in her glazed over eyes than she started with.<br /><br />I want 2 hours of my life back.<br /><br />Here's a couple of random quotes which I happened to remember:<br /><br />"What I think of as unreal has become a lot more real to me, and that, which I used to consider real, is oftentimes a lot less real than the unreal." - Some talking head on the spirituality of quantum physics.<br /><br />"What does it take for one man to have an erection? It takes just one thought. Nothing changes on the outside, all the changes are within. An yet he has an erection" - Some self proclaimed mystic, head of her own school of enlightenment.<br /><br />[while looking at herself in the mirror] "I hate you! I hate you! You're fat! You're ugly! I have you!" - main character, the fat and ugly photographer. | 0neg
|
If you're a layman interested in quantum theory and string theory, read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene of Columbia University, and "The Universe in a Nutshell" by Stephen Hawking of Cambridge.<br /><br />Recipe for #$*!:<br /><br />3 parts bombastic New Age pontificator, 2 parts pseudoscientist, 2 parts real scientist<br /><br />Mix together until ingredients are indistinguishable from each other and spread on celluloid thin enough that there is no discernible substance.<br /><br />Serving suggestion: barf bags. | 0neg
|
I was extremely suspicious of the ideas presented in this movie, but being relatively ignorant of quantum physics aside from what I recalled from the excellent "Short History of Nearly Everything" and what I was able to choke down in "A Brief History of Time," it sounded interesting at times. However, the obvious nonsense of the story of the Indians being unable to see the ships of the explorers was ridiculous. I really started questioning what was being shoveler at that point, but then the clincher was the revelation that one of the speakers was actually "channelling" some loony named "Ramtha" completely upset the applecart for me.<br /><br />What a waste of two hours. | 0neg
|
A definite no. A resounding NO. This movie is an absolute dud.<br /><br />Having been recommended to me by a friend very much into "that sort of thing," I watched this movie with some anticipation of being informed, changed, moved, altered, uplifted, and all the other positive mystical things that could happen to me when I suddenly see The Truth. Now this may sound like someone who is already predisposed to poo-pooing anything dealing with the metaphysical, the metaphysical/physical boundaries of existence. Believe me, I am not such a person. I try to be open about any presentation and then decide accordingly.<br /><br />In terms of content, the only thing I found mildly interesting and informative, was the bit about peptides, emotions, addiction, and cellular receptors. That was the only "unifying" element I could find in the documentary part of this film. The rest of the documentary rambled around several topics and never seemed to unify and cohere, try to tie up and conclude to a point. And what was all that stuff about native Americans not being able to see the ships that Columbus came in? Who told the "authorities" in this film that that was what happened in 1492? Where they there too? Had they compared this to scientific work being done in visual cognition (the famous gorilla video, for example, visit the Visual Cognition Lab at the University of Illinois site) there may have been a more convincing point made. Here, however, it seemed like unsupported mystical mumbo-jumbo.<br /><br />As a film: this wasn't one film, it was two. I found the documentary part mildly interesting, just to hear the people talking about what they were talking about (I was annoyed that their credentials weren't presented at the bottom of the screen when they spoke, at least initially!) But I found the "story" part of the movie with Matlin in it annoying, disjointed, intrusive, non-related and downright stupid. That bit about the Polish wedding with that dance was not in the least bit funny. It was laughable, ludicrous, sophomoric, and stupid. And I found the use of the word "Pollack" offensive. It just seemed so out of place and wrong. Is such usage okay because a member of the group uses a pejorative term to refer to the group because he or she is a member of the group? That may be okay to make a point, but it didn't seem to be used that way here. And in any case, I don't care what the reason, it offended me, a Pole. I never call myself or refer to my ethnic background as "Pollack." And I certainly don't like like it when others do. Can I watch or listen to a bigoted conversation in which this term is used? You betcha! But again this didn't seem to be the case here. It just seemed so out of place. Unprovocked, unmitigated.<br /><br />The acting was abysmal. Elaine Hendrix's performance was totally unbelievable. At times, it seemed like she was just reading her lines that had just been given to her. Marlee Matlin for the most part seemed to be sleep walking through this whole thing. Perhaps she was baffled by the material. I know I was. If she was supposed to be portraying a disillusioned drugged-up anxiety-prone malcontent, it just didn't seem to click. But by far, the world's worst was Hendrix! All in all, I found this a disjointed, poorly acted piece of clap-trap. | 0neg
|
If you want to see intelligent, philosophical discussion of human possibility and potential, watch "Waking Life," which is brilliant. "What the #$*! Do We Know" is all over the place in its focus, poorly directed, poorly written, poorly acted, utterly devoid of any art direction and completely annoying. It wasn't thought-provoking or entertaining in the slightest. The inclusion of that rambling freak "Ramtha" in this film is reason enough to avoid it. Isn't it strange how the filmmakers choose to look over the fact that this woman worships some 2,000 year old Atlantian god or something? What a flake that old chick is, and what a total waste of my time and money this movie was. The people responsible for this film should not be allowed to make another movie ever again. | 0neg
|
If you want to learn the basics of quantum mechanics, spend your $9 on a used textbook, not this movie. I'm a little worried that the money I spent is being used to buy Kool-Aid for shipment to Guyana. <br /><br />I don't think the directors really got any point across, but it looks like maybe they were trying to make several: 1) Science can explain everything we do, meaning that our lives are deterministic; 2) Science can't be used to explain everything we do, meaning that we have free will; 3) Science is, like, really cool, brother; 4) We are God; 5) The world exists only in our minds; 6) Sarah Norman is a tough role to follow and 7) here, put this tiny paper square in your mouth and you'll see some really groovy stuff. | 0neg
|
Pathetic attempt to use science to justify new age religion/philosophy. The two have nothing to do with each other and much of what is said about Quantum Physics in this mess is just plain wrong.<br /><br />Examples? Quantum theory supports the ideas in eastern religions that reality is an illusion. How? Well, in the world of the subatomic, you can never definitely predict a particles location at a specific time. You can only give the odds of it being precisely at one spot at one time. Also, the act of observation seems to affect the event. Solid particles can pass through barriers. All of this, so far, is accurate. But then they assert that that means that if you believed sincerely enough that you could walk through a wall, you could indeed do it. This is complete poppycock. Instead, the theory asserts that at our level, it is possible for you to walk through a wall, but it is merely by chance and has nothing to do with belief. Also you'd have to keep walking into the wall for eternity to ever have even the remotest chance of passing through the wall, the odds are so astronomically against it.<br /><br />This is but one example of how they misrepresent the science. But much more annoying is the narrative involving an unhappy photographer, played by Marlee Maitlan. About halfway through the picture it becomes so confused as to be incomprehensible. Something to do with negative thoughts leading to addiction and self-hate. There may be some truth to that, but Quantum physics has nothing to do with it.<br /><br />Plus, string theory is the hot new thing in physics nowadays. Instead of wasting your time with this dreck, I suggest you rent The Elegant Universe, an amazing series done for NOVA on PBS that gives you a history of physics from Newton and gravity to Ed Witten and M Theory in only 3 hour-long episodes. Quantum mechanics is explained there quite well if you want to know it without the fog of metaphysical appropriation. | 0neg
|
I'm still trying to decide if this is indeed, the worst film I have ever seen - A very disturbing problem with this film is that real scientists are interviewed, but their footage is edited to make it look as though they support the ideas of the many BSers who populate this film. The BS to signal ratio of the interviews is about ten thousand to one - at the end, the interviewees seem to be saying, "We want you to _think_ !!", but they themselves are too lazy to do simple research about things they assert as fact.<br /><br />If you feel that you are open-minded, and wish to expand your consciousness, please be open-minded enough to read some actual books about quantum theory: "Einstein's Universe", Nigel Calder (a slim volume, not a challenge), "The Cosmic Code", by Heinz Pagels. If you can't bring yourself to read a book, please don't complain to reviewers about being "open-minded".<br /><br />To recap, this film is just unbelievably bad.<br /><br />You know what's a really good film which questions the nature of reality? "Thirteenth Floor", directed by Roland Emmerich, with Craig Bierko, Gretchen Mol, Vincent D'onofrio. Smart, sexy, thought-provoking. | 0neg
|
"What the Bleep Do We Know!?" was one of the worst times I have spent at the movies. It was less of a movie and more of an after school special, but at the same time nothing special at all. The attempt at a narrative in which they grounded their ideas was absolutely pathetic, which almost anyone will tell you. Marlee Matlin in her underwear just shouldn't happen. I won't dwell on it. What I will reveal is a criticism that many are unable to formulate. This movie, while tedious, also suffered a tremendous flaw in reasoning. It was horribly contradictory because it took such a manipulative, become a creator of your life, manifestation of abundance, shoeless piece of propaganda. Interconnectivity is explained as a large party of our existence. However, the movie encourages that we control our surroundings with our minds. It completely neglects that there are other people with minds that could be controlling us, which seems to be more the case. Or at least the structures in which we exist greatly limit us. In this way, the movie was inappropriately solipsistic. Solipsism and interconnectivity just don't mix unless you're God almighty. If you are, you will be impressed (?!?) by all the neat things this movie will reveal that You can do. If not, you will be sorely disappointed, a moron, or perhaps both. Also, the title is so ridiculous, I have trouble warning people not to see the movie because I feel retarded mentioning it by name. Shame on everyone involved. | 0neg
|
Another cult strikes again. This isn't a spoiler, because the REAL ending comes after you research the folks who brought this overly-long, pseudo-scientific infomercial...Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.<br /><br />When any religion/philosophy needs to hide behind an OZ-like screen of deceit, I walk away. Thank Ramtha I watched a borrowed copy of this movie on the recommendation of a "friend"...to have wasted precious resources on this New-Age lobotomizer would have been tragic. I can only hope that they "truly believe they can walk on water" enough to take that guidance to it's "logical" conclusion...in other words; walk, drown...or shut up :-) As a movie...it deserves a strong "1" on it's entertainment value, especially for creating the most dislikable character in film history (the photographer's roommate...eeeeeek!). If you must see this film, borrow it from one of the brainwashed folks who recommended it. | 0neg
|
I agree strongly with some of the other critics of this film. I found it incredibly silly (at best) and downright misleading, misinforming and harmful (at worst). Like others, I found this film to be an awful mix of "real" science and pseudoscientific, New Age propaganda. <br /><br />As a psychologist, I was especially offended by Candace Pert's contributions. True, I was not a fan of hers before this film, but her discourse on the "consciousness" of cells was one of the best examples of taking a term ("consciousness") that has a predictable meaning to most people and using it in such a distorted manner as to cause it to obscure rather than clarify. It is an old Orwellian mind-f**k that the master himself described so well in his superb essay "Politics and the English Language." To refer to "consciousness" in this manner--indeed, to refer to this film as "based in science" in general (which is its clear intent)--is to use language in the same manner employed by Stalin when he labeled his slave-states "democratic republics" and Hitler when he called his party a "socialist workers" movement.<br /><br />I don't claim to really understand quantum physics. I know enough about it to know that to really understand it would take considerable study. Ah, but we Americans do love "instant enlightenment," and that's what this mistake of a film tries to accomplish. If it ASKED questions, that would be one thing, but it clearly attempts to ask and ANSWER them, which no film could possibly do simply because we are far, far away from the answers (if they indeed exist).<br /><br />By the way, ethically this film needed a disclaimer about the association of several "expert commentators" with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (and TM), not to mention J.Z. Knight, who often speaks in her "Ramtha" voice. (I'm always amazed at this channeled 10,000 year-old Atlantean superman's grasp of 21st century concepts and terminology. But then again, this film argues that the past, present and future are all one and the same, so if Ramtha existed in Atlantis 10,000 years ago, I suppose he could exist now and tomorrow. Only, then how come his financial advice has been so incredibly bad for his followers? Oh, I forgot, I'm the creator of "good" and "bad" advice, so it's all my fault, not Ramtha's.)<br /><br />What a mess. | 0neg
|
At first glance this documentary/fiction/cartoon is quite entertaining and thought provoking. Of course, when something provokes thought, it can then be scrutinized. The reality is this movie combines metaphysics with innuendo and baseless conclusions. The link that "What the Bleep..." would have you see between science and spirituality is, in fact, not rooted in science at all. The Transcendental Meditation study mentioned in the film claims that meditation by a group can reduce crime in a given area, Washington D.C. in this case. In reality the HRA (Homicides, Rapes, and Assaults) crime rate was about 30% higher in 1993 than the average crime rate between 19881992. There was absolutely no decrease in the homicide rate during the study. In fact, each and every claim that links metaphysics to science can and has been debunked.<br /><br />My conclusion from this information is that this movie is either a poor attempt to indoctrinate people or a joke. Either way, I suggest that you do not waste your time.<br /><br />If you are looking for a long winded movie about science that could provoke thoughts, you might consider Mindwalk (1990). | 0neg
|
I will admit that I'm only a college student at this present time, an English major at that. At the time I saw this film I was a high school student--I want to say junior year but it may have been senior, hard to remember. My experience with quantum physics goes pretty much to my honors physics course, an interest in quantum mechanics that has led me to read up on the subject in a number of books on the theoretical aspects of the field as well as any article I can find in Discover and the like. I'm not a PhD by any means.<br /><br />That said...<br /><br />This movie is simply terrible. It's designed to appeal to the scientific mind of the average New Age guru who desperately wants to believe in how special everybody is. My mother is such a person and ever since she's seen this movie she's tried to get all her friends to see it and bought a copy of the film. I attempted to point out the various flaws and problems I'd seen with the films logic and science--and they are numerous--and she dismissed my claims because "oh, so a high school student knows more than all those people with PhDs." In this case, apparently so.<br /><br />Leaving behind the fact that earning a PhD doesn't necessarily require that a person be correct or, in fact, intelligent. Leaving behind the fact that my basic understanding of physics is enough to debunk half the film. Leaving that behind, the film makers completely manipulated their interviews with at least one of the participants to make it appear that he supported their beliefs when, in fact, he completely opposed them.<br /><br />I could go on and on but I think intuitor did a really good job of debunking the film so feel free to read that if you care to do so.<br /><br />http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/bleep.html | 0neg
|
I went into this film expecting it to be similar to The Matrix or Pi. Boy, was I wrong. Yes, there is a poorly written, poorly acted plot in the movie (with CG animated cells and peptides to boot). However, the real focus of the film are the "expert" talking heads spewing out new age feel-good hogwash in between plot segments.<br /><br />Sure, it stars off innocently enough. There is a little bit of real quantum physics in the beginning. It states, for example, that electrons exist as both particle and wave, and that an atom is mostly empty space. However, the movie takes a giant (and unscientific) leap, saying that sub-atomic quantum effects happen on large scales as well. The talking heads take it even further. According to them, the following are true:<br /><br />-When Columbus arrived in the Caribbean, the natives were unable to see his ships because their minds were incapable of perceiving something so different. -Meditation can reduce the murder rate. -With positive thought, you can walk on water. -Your thoughts can change the formations of ice crystals in bottles of water.<br /><br />And hey, that's only in the first 40 minutes!<br /><br />Watching the movie was torture. This film felt like a movie they would show you to get you to join a cult. After doing my homework, I realized that it basically is just that.<br /><br />On the other hand, this could be seen as a campy comedy (albeit one that's not funny).<br /><br />Save your time and money: don't see this movie. | 0neg
|
I didn't know much about this movie before I watched it, but I heard it had something to do with quantum physics so I was interested. What I didn't know is that this is NOT ACTUALLY A STORY but a bunch of New-Age blowhards who love the sound of their own voice talking about how little they know about basic quantum mechanics. I say it belongs more in the Documentary category than Comedy or Drama.<br /><br />Marlee Matlin is in the movie, in order to give this New Age symposium *some* sort of a storyline. Her portions of the film feel horribly tacked on and are meant to display the speaker's thoughts so we won't die of boredom. Matlin has a real job as a photographer, unlike the New Age hippie that crashes on her couch. We get to listen to nameless people ramble on about what quantum physics all "means" to them. The one bright spot in this movie was the speaker from India (I assume), but I think he showed up for the wrong film.<br /><br />It looks like Barbara Eden really let herself go and she goes on and on about how quantum science has something to do with her crazy New Age beliefs. It looks like Quark from DS9 was running low on cash and he also makes a brief appearance in the film. There is a lot of whizbang CGI we're supposed to be impressed with; cells in the body are shown as dancing jello molds, because the filmmakers have apparently seen Flubber one too many times.<br /><br />People in the movie say that the Arawak people on San Salvador thought Columbus's ship the Pinta was invisible because natives had never seen clipper ships before, as if people today had any way possible way of knowing. Of course they leave out all of that information and just say "Columbus's ships were invisible to the Indians in America." The film takes many such arrogant leaps. Thomas Young did a double-slit experiment around 1805 and found that light can look like a particle some of the time, and a wave some of the time. Of course you'd never *know* this from watching this stupid film because the only reference to it is that "atoms can be particles and waves." And that must mean that people can pass through walls, walk on water, and never grow old if they just wish upon a star!! Then I'm sure Marlee Matlin could stop being deaf if she just *believed* hard enough. I'm being sarcastic, but this film is chock-full of false hope and beliefs that the people espousing them don't really hold.<br /><br />These are New Age kooks who have grabbed onto Quantum Theory as if it reaffirms everything they believe about meditation, zero point energy, crystal healing, etc. If these snake-oil salesmen truly believed the crap they were selling, couldn't they just *wish* their paychecks into existence instead of appearing in this joke of a film? We get to listen to another nameless man, with no credentials that we know of, talk on his couch in front of a fireplace (or TV screen) about how he creates his own life. Every time he was on the screen I wanted someone to rush in and throw a pie in his face. These people take themselves WAY too seriously. Some other balding guy in a suit says that nobody ever *really* touches anything because there's a magnetic force preventing it at the quantum level. If only someone had walked onto the screen and kept punching him in the stomach, screaming "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" A moral relativist in the movie claims that there's really "no such thing as good or bad." So apparently it's OK that Hitler gassed millions of Jews to death? Another person says that there is "no such thing as love." It's just a chemical and that we really don't love people, we're just addicted to the chemical rush we have when we're around them. I suspect this guy is doing this film as community service for being addicted to heroin for so many years.<br /><br />We are witness to a truly pathetic sequence where two young adults walk around a wedding reception, seeing everything like RoboCop. They evaluate if women are cows, dogs, or foxes, and a sexual position pops onto the scree. Marlee Matlin gets drunk at the wedding she's supposed to photograph and the next day decides to love herself and take a bath because she's a beautiful and unique snowflake.<br /><br />I liked when the film said people often find evidence for their pre-conceived notions. Perhaps in this review I'm only seeing what I want to see, but I TRULY wanted to see these people get pies to the face, and it never happened.<br /><br />If you've never heard of any of the ideas presented in the film before, you may find them interesting, but there are better sources for all of the ideas here. If you want to watch a good movie that talks about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, go see The Man Who Wasn't There. If you want to read a good book about Quantum Field Theory, read Hyperspace by Michio Kaku. If you want to see a film that talks about different philosophies with imaginative visuals, see Waking Life (although it can feel boring, self-important, and pretentious at times). All in all, you should go and read Quantum Psychology or Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson instead of wasting your time on this movie.<br /><br />I normally have a very hard time giving movies a score from 1 to 10, but this one was a very easy for me: 1/10 Stars.<br /><br />The movie's title is true. The people in this film don't know #$*! Hands down, the worst movie I've ever seen. | 0neg
|
This movie frequently extrapolates quantum mechanics to justify nonsensical ideas, capped by such statements like "we all create our own reality".<br /><br />Sorry, folks, reality is what true for all of us, not just the credulous.<br /><br />The idea that "anything's possible" doesn't hold water on closer examination: if anything's possible, contrary things are thus possible and so nothing's possible. This leads to postmodernistic nonsense, which is nothing less than an attempt to denigrate established truths so that all ideas, well-founded and stupid, are equal.<br /><br />To quote sci-fi writer Philip K. Dick, who put it so well, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." | 0neg
|
What The Bleep Do We Know is a deluded and haphazard look at the mysteries of the universe. We are presented with a parade of apparent experts (none of whom are named) who ramble and pontificate in a thoroughly unscientific manner. Their interviews are chopped up into aggravatingly small segments and dispersed throughout some flashy cgi and banal mini-plots.<br /><br />The film pilfers themes from science, philosophy, theology and politics, minces them together without any regard for accuracy, and then somehow extracts a few prosaic and absurd conclusions. We are led to believe that quantum physics is telling us the purpose of our existence, and any other difficult to answer question the film-makers would like to point their finger at.<br /><br />It is riddled errors and logical non-sequiturs. How did we start at quantum mechanics and end up with this pseudo-scientific spirituality and mysticism? It's like saying 'two plus two equals four, therefore I can move objects with my mind'.<br /><br />There is nothing original in this film, and almost nothing that is accurate. Any discriminating viewer will be annoyed by heavy-handed editing, intrusive and pointless special effects and general lack of substance. Educated viewers will be frustrated to tears by the violence done to science and every other subject this film touches on. | 0neg
|
Ridiculous. This movie is actually a vehicle for the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. If you are wondering who the *bleep* Ramtha is: "Ramtha is a 35,000 year-old spirit-warrior who appeared in J.Z. Knight's kitchen in Tacoma, Washington in 1977. Knight claims that she is Ramtha's channel. She also owns the copyright to Ramtha and conducts sessions in which she pretends to go into a trance and speaks Hollywood's version of Elizabethan English in a guttural, husky voice. She has thousands of followers and has made millions of dollars performing as Ramtha at seminars ($1,000 a crack) and at her Ramtha School of Enlightenment, and from the sales of tapes, books, and accessories (Clark and Gallo 1993). She must have hypnotic powers. Searching for self-fulfillment, otherwise normal people obey her command to spend hours blindfolded in a cold, muddy, doorless maze." John Wheeler, one of America's finest theoretical physicists, would roll his eyes about this movie. He has in the recent past criticized parapsychologists for their misuse and misinterpretations of quantum theory. This movie does the same thing as those fools.<br /><br />There is a great review of this movie at Skeptico. I recommend anyone considering watching this movie read it first before contributing to a cult's coffers.<br /><br />http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html I noticed one reviewer here at IMDb say to take this movie with a grain of salt. It will take enough salt to kill a horse to wade through the garbage-thinking of this movie. | 0neg
|
I can't believe that the City of Muncie is so hard up for attention that they would embarrass themselves by allowing this show to be done there. This show is like a slap in the face to real hard working law-enforcement officers. I have never before in my life seen anything so stupid in my life. If they had billed it as a comedy that would be one thing but to say it is reality is nothing short of a lie. I only saw it once and was appalled at what I saw. I wanted to see the little guy get into a foot-chase with a bad guy. What a joke that would have been. Nothing on the show was even close to the real world. The city of Muncie, the Police Chief, and all the officers should be hanging their heads in shame and should never want o admit they come from that city. No wonder it didn't stay around on TV | 0neg
|
Not an altogether bad start for the program -- but what a slap in the face to real law enforcement. The worst part of the series is that it attempts to bill itself as reality fare -- and is anything but. Men and women that dedicate their lives to the enforcement of laws deserve better than this. What is next, medical school in a minute? Charo performing lipo? Charles Grodin assisting on a hip replacement? C'mon...show a little respect. Even the citizens of Muncie are outing the program as staged. Police Academy = High School Gym? Poor editing (how many times can they use the car-to-car shot of the Taco Bell in the background?), cheesy siren effects (the same loop added ad nauseum to every 'call' whether rolling code or not), and last, but not least -- more officer safety issues than you could shake a stick at.<br /><br />If I want to see manufactured police work and wise-ass fake cops, I would watch RENO 911. | 0neg
|
What a poor image of Professional Police Officers is displayed on the Television in the watching of this alleged Reality show. One can only hope that the actual reasonable suspicion that leads to probable cause that leads to the totality of the circumstances involved to make a "stop" , then the "Pat Down" of the outside of one's Garment, then to be able to articulate why the officer went into someone's pocket and retrieved contraband, was cut out of the scenes, because if it wasn't, the arrest in most places are going to be tossed, should they even get passed a supervisor. A report of a warrant over the radio does not constitute the actual existence of the warrant unless the person dispatching has the original warrant in hand. If the dispatcher is reading from a computer printout, it is good enough for an arrest, but it does not necessarily mean the warrant is still in effect. Since I haven't seen a Dis-claimer from CBS (I may have missed it), CBS could be in trouble. | 0neg
|
SPOILER WARNING: There are some minor spoilers in this review. Don't read it beyond the first paragraph if you plan on seeing the film.<br /><br />The Disney Channel currently has a policy to make loads of movies and show one a month on the cable channel. Most of these are mediocre and drab, having a few good elements but still being a disappointment (`Phantom of the Megaplex,' `Stepsister From Planet Weird,' `Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century'). Every once in a great while, they make something really, really great (`Genius,' `The Other Me'). But once in a while The Disney Channel makes a huge mistake, and gives us a real stinker. This month (December 2000) The Disney Channel featured `The Ultimate Christmas Present,' which I thought was terrible due to poor writing and worse acting. Apparently, `The Brainiacs.com' was rushed out a few days before Christmas to get a jump on the holiday, because the plot has to do with toys. They even paid for a feature in the TV Guide, so I thought it must be better than the norm. I was in for a complete shock. Only Disney's `Model Behaviour' has been worse than this.<br /><br />The plot was more far-fetched than normal. I usually let that slide, but here it just goes too far. Matthew Tyler gets very sick of his widowed father spending most of his time at work. His father owns a small toy factory that has taken out large loans at a scrupulous bank to stay afloat. Time and time again, his father has to skip out on the plans he makes with his son and daughter. Matthew decides that the only way he can spend time with his dad is if he becomes the boss and orders him to stay home. He gets a hair-brained idea to create a website where kids all around the world can find and send him a dollar to invest in a computer chip that his sister is inventing. That whole concept is full of fallacies. When kids send in millions of dollars, Matthew opens his own company's bank account and buys up most of his dad's business's stock. He is the secret boss, but he doesn't reveal this to his dad, but instead presents himself at board meetings as a cartoon image through a computer. That image itself is so complex (and ridiculous) that it isn't possible for someone to create it at home, much less someone who comes across as stupid as Matthew. To make a long plot short, Matthew orders his dad to spend more time having fun and doing stuff with his kids, but a federal agent shows up inquiring about Matthew's company, as it is fraudulent.<br /><br />There's so much wrong here. As mentioned, the stuff they do here is impossible even for true geniuses, which these kids are not. The website, the cartoon image, the computer chip, even the stuff they are being taught in school, are far too advanced for these kids. The acting by most of the cast, especially Kevin Kilner, is terrible. Some familiar faces are wasted. Dom DeLuise plays the evil bank owner, but his part is a throwaway. He has one good scene with Alexandra Paul (who shows she has the ability to act) in which he explains his motives, but nothing more. And Rich Little is wasted in a small role as a judge. There's even some offensive and uncalled for anti-Russian jokes. But the greatest atrocities are the hard-hammered themes. These themes show up in many of The Disney Channel's films, but never before have these ultra-conservative messages been pounded so strongly. The typical `overworking parent' idea is really pushed hard, and after delivering it inappropriately in `The Ultimate Christmas Present,' seeing it again sours my mood. Family relations are important, but Disney must stop this endless preaching, because working is important to maintaining a workable family, too. Except for cancelling activities thanks to work, the father didn't come across as that bad, but I found it offensive when the grandmother told him `I don't like what I see.' Just as bad is the preaching of the idea that all single parents MUST marry if they want to raise their kids right. Enter Alexandra Paul, whose character, while important to the plot, is there solely to be the love interest for the father. This offensiveness only proves that the Disney brain trust lacks the brains to avoid scraping from the bottom of the Disney script barrel. Instead of letting this movie teach your kids how to commit serious fraud, wait for the next Disney Channel movie. It has to be better than this. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10. | 0neg
|
That's right! Under 9 on average, but maybe under 12s for some others! I was 11 when I originally saw this on video and at such youth I wasn't able to notice the shoddy cartoon-quality or the fact that those classic characters we have all grown to love are Not the same or as good to see. Just about everything is so 2D here! Belle is, I'll agree, not even beautiful but just a plain-looking woman with tinted skin, she wears the same bright blue dress all the way through with not one glamorous dress on, Wardrobe is to say the Least, annoying - my ears may bleed if I had to listen to her everyday! Lumiere, in both the original and the Christmas edition was suave and elegant, but here he is a womanizing, unfunny twit! Cogsworth, despite being the no-nonsense housekeeper he is famous for, is a complete sh-t and the most insufferable character I'd say! He always seems to find shutting that unbearably grating pie-hole of his very difficult in this one and whose clock face should really have been used for turning back in time to the unforgettable two film in this series! Poor, poor Mrs Potts was not brought to life by Angela Lansbury (one of my favourite classic actresses) but by Anne Rogers who captured none of Mrs Potts' character, no offence to her! Not if she did her best! When the beast roars it sounds so horrifically fake with clearly no additional roars, snarls or growls by a microphone. I am aware that this is only a third feature following two other films so of course it wouldn't be as good but I'm sure that more of a contribution wouldn't have hurt the Disney artists who, indeed, have achieved such remarkable styles of animation over the years. It's alright, I guess, and I do watch it sometimes though only when it suits me. It's quite difficult to make a recommendation for you reading this because it depends on how old you are but remember this will not at all be what you may expect following the earlier spectacular movies! And to think that on my video of it the text on the back cover said "boasting brilliant animation"! It's a nice little flick but for one thing it's also highly poor and, for another, those 3 words ought to have been saved for the next re-release of the original! | 0neg
|
Disney has now made straight-to-video sequels to a good bunch of their many animated features. Two of these were made for their 1991 classic, "Beauty and the Beast". Well, these ones aren't really sequels, as they are both set in between the events of the first film. The first of these two straight-to-video films was "Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas", which seems to be disliked by quite a few fans of its theatrical predecessor, but I think that can usually be expected with sequels. However, this second one, "Belle's Magical World", is definitely inferior.<br /><br />The film features three short stories, all of which take place while Belle is in the castle, and the place is under the spell of the enchantress. The first is "The Perfect Word", where a misunderstanding at the table between Belle and the Beast leads to trouble, and neither wants to be the first to apologize. The next story is "Fifi's Folly", where Fifi and Lumiere's fifth anniversary is coming up, and Lumiere is unprepared, so Belle helps him. However, Fifi sees Lumiere practicing romance with Belle, and thinks they're actually in love. The film ends with "The Broken Wing". In this story, Belle takes care of a bird with a broken wing, but a bird in the castle will probably mean trouble if the Beast finds out, as he hates birds! <br /><br />The plot description I gave is for the original VHS version of Disney's third "Beauty and the Beast" movie. Apparently, in the DVD version, there is another story added called "Mrs. Potts's Party", but I've only seen the original version. However, since I highly doubt that one story would stand out as a classic over the rest, I see no point in watching the special edition. Anyway, the first thing I will say about "Belle's Magical World" is that the animation is very 2-dimensional compared to what we're used to from Disney, which would obviously disappoint many people. I didn't like "Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas" that much, but you certainly can't say the same about its animation. I'm sure the stories in "Belle's Magical World" could entertain many kids (mostly younger ones, I think), and each story has a moral, so they could also teach them some valuable lessons. However, for adults, the film really doesn't have a lot. I personally didn't find any good humour in it, found that the constant conflict between Belle and the Beast got tiring, and the stories did not impress me too much at all in any way (they're not very well written). In "The Perfect Word", the way Belle says to the Beast, "You're acting rude... and foolish!" is a bit cheesy, and I think there are quite a few other cheesy moments in these stories.<br /><br />By the time this straight-to-video movie first came out, I was around eleven or twelve years old. I don't know what I would have thought of it at the time, as I had lost interest in Disney by then, and it would be years before I would gain any of that interest back. Even when this movie was first released, I think I was a bit past the age group it was aimed at. I never saw "Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas" until a couple months ago, but unlike that film, I never even heard of this one until recently, I think just after seeing the first sequel to Disney's 1991 hit. Well, as much as I like the theatrical original, I wouldn't have been missing much if I never became aware of this film's existence. For little kids, I'm sure "Belle's Magical World" can be highly entertaining, and probably somewhat educational with its morals, but I do not recommend it for adult Disney fans. | 0neg
|
This movie is possibly the cheapest, cheesiest, and poorest sequel ever made.<br /><br />Yet, it is the funniest and most idiotic movie by Disney, and will guarantee laughs at the sappy stories and lame plots from start to finish.<br /><br />It's a group of short stories that seem like bad fanfictions.<br /><br />*SPOILER ALERT* The first one's all about Beast and Belle being petty over a pathetic argument. Then, three loser new characters decide to patch things up by forging a letter of forgiveness to give to Belle. Part way through this little episode, Belle has wall eyes, which made my siblings and I laugh so hard. Then, she and the Beast fight more over the letter... and later learn the meaning of forgiveness. How old are they??? Certainly old enough to know the meaning of forgiveness.<br /><br />Then, the next one's all about Lumiere being the world's biggest dope when it comes to romance. This coming from the man who could woo anything female. And they make FiFi a psychotic villainess who tries to kill Belle, and winds up getting off scotch-free by the end of it. What a message to send the kids!<br /><br />Then, the next one's all about Mrs. Potts being angsty. And the next one after that's all about Beast becoming overly possessive of a bird, to the point where he just seems downright silly.<br /><br />The animation's so ugly, it kills. There are at least 100 mistakes you can plainly see... and the coloring is awful.<br /><br />Belle's a simpering sap who blubbers whenever something goes wrong. Plus, she's petty and very different from the usual Belle.<br /><br />And the side characters are annoying... (I mean, Cogsworth and Lumiere fight almost all the time. I know they did that in the movie, but it was overdone in this.)<br /><br />But the worst character is Mrs. Potts. She's ruined in this. I can't even describe it. Just buy it and see for yourself.<br /><br />I give it a 1/10 for the sap, but I give it a 10/10 for comedy. | 0neg
|
I didn't feel as if I'd been raped like I did with THE ENCHANTED CHRISTMAS,but BELLE'S MAGICAL WORLD is still the antithesis of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. Like CHRISTMAS,BMW hates its audience,although not to such an extreme degree. It's ugly,uncanonical,idiotic,and the writing is horrifically bad.None of the stories work. These are not the characters we loved from BATB at all,they're a bunch of pod people. I wanted to dissect it,but after a few minutes,I gave up,because no one in their right mind would take this claptrap seriously. What we have here are three stories. "The Perfect Word" is an overbearing,ponderous study of forgiveness. "Fifi's Folly" only works if you can accept that Babette's name is actually Fifi and that she's a closet James Bond villainess and that Lumiere is an idiot concerning women. "Broken Wing" (or "Broken Wind" as I like to call it) is probably the most heinous of the bunch. Beast hates birds? Since WHEN? Don't watch this crap- every copy of this video deserves to be cremated. BEAUTY AND THE BEAST is still a cinematic classic,a transcendent celebration of love,art, intelligence and the human soul. | 0neg
|
The trailers get you to the movie, but the movie just wasn't worth my 8.50.. it has some good effects, but the storyline.. yech, i like tommy lee jones and will smith as actors, they have both done some good films, but i wish they hadn't added this one to their resume's. To be honest, the book is better.. | 0neg
|
Men In Black 2 was a real disappointment for me. While the actors did a pretty good job, especially Smith, there just isn't a cure for a poor script once in production. The movie really had a "sequel" kind of feel, playing off partial events of the first film. The story was, in a word... bad, at best. It wasn't thought out well, and seemed very choppy and incoherent at times.<br /><br />In the first flick, the MIB Organization had a kind of "elite" force feel. You had a few special agents, and it had a "clandestine" kind of feel to it. In the sequel, the MIB Organization has a JROTC Summer Camp vibe.<br /><br />The movie wasn't terrible or anything.. it just lacked the "coolness" (for lack of a better phrase) of the first movie. A lot of the same old humor was recycled from the first to the second, and didn't really add any originality to the MIB Universe.<br /><br />A perfect analogy would be Episode 1 to the first 3 films. Was it decent? Yeah. Is it worthy of bearing it's title? Not really. | 0neg
|
I'm surprised that anyone involved with the production of this series would actually admit responsibility. The script is so unfunny it must have been written by someone who failed the entrance exam for the Canadian Comedy Writers' Union (and that's saying something!). Get out your binoculars if you want, but there's nothing resembling a joke in sight. Ronnie Corbett must have been flat broke to demean himself with this rubbish. The rest of the cast are so lacking in any kind of acting or comedic ability I'm amazed it lasted past the first episode - correction, past the auditions. All I can say to those who are amused by it is that they must be very easily entertained. And it's obvious that the production costs must have been all of ₤100 per episode. And just in case anyone thinks I'm commenting as a foreigner who is unfamiliar with English humour, I must add that I am indeed English. | 0neg
|
Honestly, I was disappointed in "Expiration Date." Super clever title and interesting premise, but I don't think it delivered. What was it about? The main character's desire to reconnect with his Native roots? Or, more likely, it was his need to overcome his fear of death. But, he wasn't set up as someone who has lived his life in fear -- it seems as if his life was going fine, but since doomsday is approaching he should now start worrying. I didn't buy it. Meanwhile, the supporting characters in the film didn't seem to have needs that blended into an overarching story. They were all just doing their thing, running parallel to the main character. Also, what was treated as a "curse" looked more like a coincidence. Who cursed the family? Why? When? Finally, why didn't he just plan on staying in his apartment all day on his birthday? Those are my criticisms, but I did love the shots of Seattle, cinematography was beautiful, acting was good in the times it wasn't outstanding. | 0neg
|
OK, it's very rare that I complain something I got for FREE. So I guess this movie pushed me over that limit. I saw it at the Hollywood Cemetery for FREE and walked away very very disappointed. One audience member's question to the director about using the Native American references just as "bookends" instead of being weaved into the movie better, basically says everything that this movie FAILED on. <br /><br />NATIVE American REFERENCES--- The Native American references felt really out of place and contrived. It's obvious that this director and writer tried tackling an arena they never played in before. They should have stuck to the old adage of "write about something you know". IF they are in fact versed in this it certainly did not show on the movie or the beauty of this unique culture was not given proper justice. <br /><br />Clichés and ON THE NOSE--- I agreed to see this film on the basis that it was an indie. So I held it to higher expectations. "Little Miss Sunshine" was an indie and saw it before it became so popular. Before it even came out to wide release I was already raving how it's going to be a hit. UNFORTUNATELY I could not say the same about "Expiration Date". "Sunshine" took us to cliché incidents but the filmmakers were so clever at their approach that the outcome would take us to a different direction avoiding the trap of being a "cliche". This movie on the other hand had no way of not falling in the trap because it was already TRAPPED from the start. The psycho mom's antics, the Hendrix couple, etc. <br /><br />I hate to say it, but the best and WORST movie I've seen this year were both indies. "Little Miss Sunshine" being the best and this movie being the worst. I wish I could say otherwise. <br /><br />But I do congratulate the filmmakers for having such a good turn out from their family members at the cemetery. | 0neg
|
I don't know what that other guy was thinking. The fact that this movie was independently made makes it no less terrible. You can be as big a believer as you want... the majority of this film is mindless drivel. I feel i have been insulted by having to watch the first 40 minutes of it. And that alone was no small feat. Not only is the acting terrible, but the plot is never even close to developed. There are countless holes in the story, to the point where you can hardly even call it a story anymore. I've never read the book, so I can't critique on that, but this is the first review that I've written here and it's purpose is solely to save all you viewers out there an hour and a half of your life. I can't remember the last time I couldn't even finish watching a movie. This one really takes the cake. | 0neg
|
This film fails to capture any of the mystery and intrigue that the book offers. The main point of the book, the insights, are hardly even touched upon, leaving the viewer wondering exactly why everyone is making such a big deal about them and why they are willing to risk their lives.<br /><br />The character development is not good at all. No background or personal development leaves the audience not really caring at all about what happens to them, and so the action sequences fall flat.<br /><br />The search for the manuscripts ends abruptly, and with no real explanation, not leaving any sense of satisfaction as to what the whole search was for.<br /><br />This is one of the worst adaptations of a book I have ever seen. It is horrible and a waste of time. If you have not read the book, skip the movie and read it. If you have read the book, skip the movie and reread it.<br /><br />It is almost as if the point of making the movie was to discredit the book, that is how poorly done and ridiculous this movie is. It is a shame too, because it could have been good had they capitalized on it at the height of its success and they probably would have been able to get a good screenwriter and some good actors.<br /><br />Please don't waste your time, READ THE BOOK!!! | 0neg
|
Bingo is the game, bullshit is the name. Rarely has the screen been smeared with such a blown-up hodgepodge of half-baked conspiracy theories, puritan prudery, and new-age gibberish. The bulk of the story is set at Viciente, a Cristian resort in the Peruvian jungle. Think Tolkien's Rivendell meets Star Trek's Planet Baku, inhabited by dimwitted followers of a not-so-mysterious, but surprisingly narrow-minded cult of love and peace. Thanks to gruesome acting and tacky production design (the rainbow-colored visualization of the mysterious all-healing "energy" is particularly hideous), "The Celestine Prophecies" looks and feels like a discarded 1980s "Twilight Zone" episode. Factual errors regarding church history and nomenclature abound. I can't believe Hector Elizondo agreed to be a part of this. Maybe it was made without his consent, Bowfinger style. May the Lord have mercy on the director, the screenwriter, the author of the novel, and the poor souls who see the movie or read the book. | 0neg
|
I read the book Celestine Prophecy and was looking forward to seeing the movie. Be advised that the movie is loosely based on the book. Many of the book's most interesting points do not even come out in the movie. It is a "B" movie at best. Many events, characters, how the character interact and meet in the book are simply changed or do not occur. The flow of events that in the book are very smooth, are choppy and fed to the view as though you a child. The character development is very poor. Personnallities of the characters differ from those in the book. The direction is similar to a "B" horror flick. I understand that it would take six hours in film to present all that is in the book, but they screen play base missed many points. The casting was very good. | 0neg
|
The film gives a rather condensed version of what is contained in the book, which as far as I can tell by doing some research and investigative fact checking is largely a work of fiction. In reality, there are no ancient scrolls and if the author was hard pressed I'm sure he'd have to admit he's never laid eyes on any scrolls in ancient Aramaic found in Peru. These "valuable" texts written as usual by anonymous, were destroyed by the evil "truth haters" in the church and in the local government. That's rather strange, as all kinds of New Age crap comes out each year---hundreds of books, dozens of movies--and the Roman Catholic church doesn't seem to me to be hell bent on destroying the movement which it probably views as I do, a total crock of doody. I'm no fan of the church, mind you, but at least the ancient texts which they base their faith on are real.<br /><br />It's a typical pattern of scam artists and religious hucksters to claim to have seen or translated ancient documents which unfortunately got destroyed by "evil" men or in Joseph Smith's case, got taken back to Heaven once translated. Therefore, the actual texts cannot be found in any museums like the Smithsonian, nor the translations checked by specialists in ancient languages like Coptic or Aramaic. It's a scam. In one sense, I admire anybody smart enough to come up with a great idea and make millions off it, but I couldn't do it myself, as I've no desire to mislead the public with more New Agey hokum.<br /><br />Occasionally, a genuine ancient text does get found hidden away and lost for years. The Gospel of Judas, a Gnostic text, was discovered and after carbon dating and diligent study of the text, deemed authentic by experts. The Gospel of Judas was referenced as heretical around 300 C.E.. No church documents from that time mention any Celestine Prophecies as authentic, heretical or anything else.<br /><br />We are evolving towards something--that much is true---but the optimism in the Celestine Prophecy is based on nothing but fiction and lies, and a philosophy built on a foundation of lies, like a castle built on sand will collapse. The harsh, ugly, overpopulated, cruel world of Blade Runner is more likely what it'll be like over the Horizon, than some Utopian Hippie Commune where all is love and peace! I tell people the truth and they hate me, but tell them what they want to hear, even if pure piffle, and one can make millions. The Celestine Prophecy is what the world wants to hear. Too bad it is a castle built on sand. Don't get me wrong. I wish to God, the Celestine Vision was reality, only it's not. No ancient philosophy at any time expressed ideas given in the Insights with the modern concept of spiritual evolution going hand in hand with biological evolution. These New Agey ideas did not exist in the ancient world and did not exist until Darwininan Evolution became well-known. That means the ideas in the Celestine Prophecies cannot be older than the 1800s C.E, and do not go back to the early B.C.E period or near the time of Jesus of Nazareth. This type of claim by New Agers is not at all unusual. Wiccans claim their brand of magic and witchcraft -- the "old religion" goes back to the stone age, when in reality no Book of Shadows has ever been known to exist prior to Gerald Gardner who lived in the 1900s and was the buddy of Aleister Crowley.<br /><br />New Age gurus tell lies and claim their ideas are based on ancient teachings, when the ancients would thumb their noses at such absurdities that are preached by Gurus today. Why do they do what they do, perpetrate such fraud? Simple: there are millions of dollars to be made, and the modern Guru acquires power over his or her followers. They compete fiercely and have a strong hatred for their competition despite their claims of love for all things. Each New Age group bitter opposes the others. It's a struggle for your minds and your wallets.<br /><br />But learn one thing from me, that is actually similar to one of the insights, learn to follow your own instincts and look for guidance from within. That I can agree with wholeheartedly. | 0neg
|
I must admit I do not hold much of New Age mumbo jumbo. When people "exchange energy" I always wonder how much kJ is actually exchanged and how it may contribute to solving the global warming problem. When energy "is enforced" I always wonder how they managed to violate the laws of entropy and still are without Nobel prizes. When people feel how well instinct enables them to flawlessly navigate through the complexities of life I wonder how they fail to do a simple thing like finding the train station.<br /><br />But then again, this is not the first movie with plot holes and most of them I find perfectly acceptable and entertaining. If this were the case with "The Celestine Prophecy" I wouldn't burn this movie down, but unfortunately it isn't. Every actor seems to be bored out of his head and unable to grasp what he are actually supposed to be doing on location. This results in many "Ah-s" and "Oh-s", like I tend to do when talking about quantum physics with somebody who actually knows what he is talking about and pretend to understand.<br /><br />The direction is uninspired as well. You might expect something more from the guy who did "What dreams may come", but hey, I supposed he got well paid for the job and adopted the attitude of a New York taxi driver: "It's your money, buddy.." The only one who seems to be having fun is all-time bad guy Jürgen Prochnow. Not only does he have a job, he is one of the few actors in this movie who may have a few wise cracks at this eternal and terribly boring New Age chatter.<br /><br />This movie is much like one of these dinner dates when you find out that your date is actually a horrible bore who seems to be unable to shut up. At one moment in time it seems the words turn into small ping pong balls that are thrown to your head incessantly until it hurts.<br /><br />If you want to have a good time and have to choose between this movie and sticking safety pins in your eyelids, take my advise: choose the latter. | 0neg
|
My dear Lord,what a movie! Let's talk about the "special effects" first. Don't get me wrong here, I am not one of those effect fanatics but I was truly thinking that superimposition was a practice of the long gone past, mainly the 60's. So for some time I thought they might have recorded this movie a long time ago and it took them forever to cut and release it. But as far as I know they did not have cell phones in the 60's...<br /><br />What I am looking for in movies is mainly a good story with a really good message. Acting is secondary, effects are secondary, I do not even mind a few little inconsistencies. However, in a movies like this bad acting, incredibility, etc. add up to make a bad movie even worse - that's what happened for me with the Celestine Prophecy.<br /><br />My wife said the book was actually really good and even though I am not into all that spiritual stuff I can somehow see that it can be brought across in a believable way - the movie failed to do so.<br /><br />There could be one single reason to watch this one though. If you really love cheesy movies it'll be the right one for you. If the IMDb stars were for cheesiness instead of quality I MUST have rated this movie ten stars.<br /><br />By the way, three stars are for the fact that there are worse movies out there, like "Critical Mass" (look up the comments on that one - hilarious). The Celestine Prophecy is at least entertaining to a certain degree. | 0neg
|
Amateurism best describes the film adaptation of the best-selling philosophical novel "The Celestine Prophecy", which follows the spiritual awakening of an out of work teacher in a mysterious village in Peru. Home video quality actors present so-called characters spewing overwrought exposition and metaphysical hokum, while the film is propelled by the extremely heavy-handed direction of Armand Mastroianni. Even though there are visible attempts at measuring up to and interesting fans of stronger fare in the vain of ABC's "Lost" or Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code", the filmmakers are hardly up to the task. This film reeks of ill-conceived mass consumption spiritual propaganda, and the results are so awful few can wade through this mess to spot a real point. | 0neg
|
Boring. Minimal plot. No character development. I went into this movie with high expectations from the book. It COULD have been an awesome movie. It COULD have probably become a cult classic. Nope, it was a giant let-down. It was poorly cast and had horrible special effects. It was difficult to determine who were the bad guys: the rebels or the military or the church or all of them? I am still left puzzled by certain mini-plots from the movie. I am left dumbfounded as to certain aspects of this so-called "prophecy", which is never really FULLY explained. I felt like I was watching a corny episode of a mini-series on the sci-fi channel. It seemed very much like a made-for-TV movie. Don't go see this movie. It is a waste of time AND money. | 0neg
|
The movie was TERRIBLE!!! Easily the worst movie I have seen in the past few years. One of those movies I will be able to tell people for the next three years that it was the worst movie I can think of. Thank you for giving me an answer to that burning question "What is the worst movie you have seen?" Answer: Celestine Prophecy. Trust me...I read the book, enjoyed the message and was excited to see the movie, but then, they treated the audience like we are r*tarded. There is no story and the story that is there is crippled by too much magic and coincidence. It is too bad they have to spell out the nine prophecies and can't simply weave them into a story that is entertaining to follow. They didn't spend any time on character development and it was easy to not care if any character died. It was embarrassing to be one of the few people who stuck around until the end of this incredibly boring movie. The book is pretty boring too but I enjoyed the parallels that could be seen in everyday life while you read the book. The film does not offer the same opportunity and I would suggest not seeing it if you want to continue to hold the words of the book close to your heart. DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE. Trust me. | 0neg
|
I have just seen this movie and have not read the book. The good thing of the movie is that at some parts it gets you thinking for a little while on the spiritual subject, evolution, sincronicity and your part in the world.<br /><br />However, the movie's immersion is easily broken and there is very little rapport between the viewer and the characters. It is very clear that the book looses a lot in this movie version. The events that were suppose to show sincronicity taking place are almost unrecognizable. A lot of reasoning has to be done for the viewer to see that the scene indicates a coincidence, and even more to imagine that it has something to do with a greater purpose. <br /><br />Enlightenment scenes are visually poor and do not create the better feeling that it was supposed to. Do you recall the enlightenment with Keanu Reeves (in Little Buddha) ? Well, this is nothing like that.<br /><br />Most scenes are poorly executed. There are a lot of scenes that really don't develop the story and also do not help in creating an atmosphere.<br /><br />The better actors in this movie, namely Hector Elizondo, Joaquim de Almeida and Jürgen Prochnow cannot save it. The first 2 seem to have gotten more scenes than their characters should in an attempt to save the movie, and because they were paid more, but this does not work. Most of the scenes are not really necessary and do not help the story at all.<br /><br />Jürgen does good in his scenes and sells as an evil guy (as always), but the script does not help him at all. The scene where he first tries to convince John (Matthew Settle) to join him is just bad script. The execution of the scene when he dies in an explosion is absurdly bad executed. The flashbacks throughout the movie cannot even be commented.<br /><br />Overall this movie is a big waist of time, read the book! I have not read it, but it is probably a billion times better than this, it has to be.<br /><br />It is so bad that I had to write my first comment in IMDb. | 0neg
|
This delectable fusion of New Age babble and luridly bad film-making may not "open" you up, to borrow one of the film's favorite verbs, but it might leave your jaw slack and your belly sore from laughter or retching. Based on the best-selling book by James Redfield, first (self) published in 1993, this cornucopia of kitsch tracks the spiritual awakening of an American history teacher (Matthew Settle) who, on traveling to deepest, darkest, phoniest Peru and sniffing either the air or something else more illegal. Namely what he discovers is a schlock Shangri La populated by smiling zombies who may be nuts or just heavily medicated, perhaps because they're often accompanied by a panpipe flourish and an occasional shout out from a celestial choir. Although there's a lot of talk about "energy," that quality is decidedly missing from the motley cast whose numbers include Thomas Kretschmann, Annabeth Gish, Hector Elizondo and Jurgen Prochnow, all of whom are now firmly ensconced in the camp pantheon. For those who care, the plot involves the military, terrorists and the Roman Catholic Church; Armand Mastroianni provided the inept direction while Mr. Redfield, Barnet Bain and Dan Gordon wrote the hoot of a script. In short, easily the worst film seen in 40+ years of viewing movies. | 0neg
|
This movie is just not worth your time. Its reliance upon New-Age mysticism serves as its only semi-interesting distraction. The plot is one that has been re-cycled countless times.<br /><br />I was only prompted to even spend the time to put in a comment when I noted that some have tried to prop-up the reputation of this drivel. Their motivation & objectivity is dubious, since they encourage you not to look at the movies faults, but at its well intentioned message of New Age consciousness.<br /><br />So would it be alright for some twenty to thirty Evangelical Christians, or Islamic Fundamentalists to pour in positive ratings about movies/television that support their views? In spite of the poor qualities of production, or the lack of truth in any of its supposed historic basis? I hope not.<br /><br />I am sure the followers will come right behind me to say flowery things about this movie, in spite of the truth. | 0neg
|
I read the book and the book was fascinating.<br /><br />This movie, it's direction, the screenplay, and the acting were totally insufferable. I cringed at the lack of a screenplay that could not follow the novel, a novel that has all the action, simplicity, and courage to illustrate a temerity of a great possibly fact based story.<br /><br />I can see why this movie was not released to the general public in most cities. Would not ever recommend this film to anyone I know. <br /><br />Simply, one of he worst adaptations I have seen transformed into a plot less exploration of heaven on earth.<br /><br />The cinematography was indeed the only highlight. But, how could that fail when filmed in an beautiful country such as Peru. <br /><br />To prospective viewers, do not waste your time or energy on this flop. | 0neg
|
I went to see this movie with a crowd that consisted predominantly of "spiritual" New Age types, who, quite unlike me, very much enjoyed this movie---although according to those that also knew the book (apparently there is a book that contains more of this nonsense), the movie is not quite as good. So, if you tend to think of yourself as "spiritual", believe in or at least can tolerate stuff like "aura" and "astral body", and don't mind the frequent use of the term "energy" outside of the context of physics or technology, you might actually like the movie, and will likely even more enjoy whatever book it is apparently based on.<br /><br />However, if you are mostly in touch with the physical universe, if your ability to suspend disbelief is easily exhausted by inane New Age nonsense and plots based thereon, if in addition to that you have a low tolerance for cheesy lighting effects to denote the happening of spirituality, and perhaps even expect reasonable non-wooden dialog an acting, then this is my recommendation for you regarding this movie: Stay. Away.<br /><br />Don't even think about it. Tonight, this movie displaced Dungeons and Dragons as the worst movie I ever personally saw in a movie theater (I do not count movies I went to see with the expectation of them being bad, such as Plan 9 etc.). At the same time, it raised the grand total of movies I almost walked out on to two (D&D being the other one). I do not walk out on movies, not even on this one, but I should've when I first saw the visual depiction of an aura, because the New Age BS keeps on getting thicker and thicker from that point on.<br /><br />The plot is about a group of people involving themselves with some old prophecies, in a quest for spiritual enlightenment and aiming at bringing mankind to the next step in its evolution. Or something like that. They actually talk about this spiritual stuff being the next step in human evolution, which should make anybody who has even the faintest idea of what human evolution is cringe. The movie is shock full with whoppers like that. Occasionally people beam to what they would certainly describe as "another dimension", or perhaps "another plane", only to become invisible to those around them who haven't yet reached enlightenment. Goodness.<br /><br />At the end the director patronizes the audience by rolling the "insights" making up the prophecy, painfully slow, presumably so that we can memorize them and leave the cinema as better, more enlightened individuals.<br /><br />Good things about the movie? Some very pretty nature shots, and some decent supporting performances by Elizondo and de Almeida.<br /><br />I honestly can say that it seriously affects my ability to take a person seriously if they consider this movie interesting or acceptable. It really is el cheapo spiritualism of the most naive kind, and unless that's your thing, you better do something else with your time and money. | 0neg
|
If you want to see a movie that terribly mixes up one Latin country with any other Latin country, "The Celestine Prophecy" is a good example: 1. Perú, not even in its most violent times, has not shown polices or soldiers as much as in this film. This showed a country like El Salvador when Civil War. Since I'm a Peruvian who lives in Lima (the capital of Perú), it was too funny to me seeing the police guards here, there and everywhere. 2. If you have a car in Perú, and you want (or need) to be a taxi driver, just post a sticker with the word "Taxi" on the front glass of your car and you can drive freely in Peruvian streets (there are taxi companies, but their rates are quite expensive). No need of yellow or a black/white squared band on the doors of your car. Well, taxis in this film have that band, somethin that you will never see in Perú. 3. Peruvian people are not Caribbean styled clothing. For example, when a taxi driver comes out, he was wearing a "Guayabera" (Cuban shirt), a white hat, and 40's mustaches, like Clark Gable. Not one Peruvian man looks like that, please! Perú is not the Caribbeans! 4. A scene shows a woman on a street with a quite long skirt, like the typical folklore dresses in Latin America. Take a walk anywhere in Perú, and you'll never find a woman wearing like that, unless you are watching a typical dance. 5. Cast could've been better: I can not deny Héctor Elizondo is a great actor, but he's not a Latin actor (his father was Basque and his mother from Puerto Rico, but he was born in New York) and his Spanish is not fluent. It's notorious Spanish is not his first language. There are dozens of very good Latin actors who could've performed as Cardinal Sebastián. Petrus Antonius (General Rodríguez) was also a bad choice for a "Latin Police officer". It was so funny seeing Elizondo and Petronius in General Rodríguez's office. They looked like two English or American students in a Spanish class, making their best effort in order to pronounce Spanish. Unsuccessfully, of course. Castulo Guerra was better in his Spanish. A "Peruvian" officer, who announced Cardinal Sebastián, spoke a quite funny Spanish too. There are very good Peruvian actors, like Augusto Alvarez-Calderón and Christian Meier (just to mention two out of many Peruvian actors), who could've performed with excellence. 6. I admit that a fictional movie can let itself a license inventing cities or, even, countries. But, please, when creating a name, be careful when using a foreign language: The town portrayed in this movie should've been called "Vicente" and not "Viciente". Vicente is a male name, and Viciente has never been used. 7. I disagree one user, who says that this movie was filmed on locations in Perú. Not one location is Peruvian, although the production has used in excess posters showing "Inca Kola", the Peruvian soda. As not few American films, this one must have used any Latin country. After all, for American producers or directors, a Latin place is identical to any other Latin place. 8. In the first scenes, when John (Matthew Settle) flies to Perú, he's supposed to arrive to the only one international airport in Perú: Jorge Chávez Airport (in Lima, the capital). Actually, believe me, it must be any airport in the world, but Peruvian airport. And, of course, in Peruvian airports there are no military or police guards. 9. When this John takes a room in a Peruvian hotel, this one has a fan and, obviously has no air conditioner. Please, this doesn't happen in no hotel in Perú(and other Latin countries), unless you get a 1 star hotel! 10. The rebels who fight against the government are... ¡Colombians! Their accent was, with no doubt, from Colombia. For casting them, the producers should've hired Peruvian actors. In few words, it would've been cheaper filming in Perú.<br /><br />I could go on with more examples out of this film, that led me to give it a "1" (awful) vote, but I fell asleep after about 20 minutes from its beginning. But dear producers: It's not a tragedy: There are many worse movies with not few mistakes. Just let's remember "Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the Crystal skull" and indescribable Disney's "The Emperor's new groove". The list of bad films could be endless... | 0neg
|
At first, three words: READ THE BOOK! Really guys - this demonstrates the difficulties of genuine rendition of esoteric matters. I loved the book and was utterly disappointed of the film. It was ludicrous, with half a heart and the story bad explained. The novel - in the first place! - wasn't meant to focus on an adventure! That's only the surroundings. In the film, the focus reverses to just that and the message has taken a back seat! Additional, the visual effects to show the energy of all living things and the elucidation of the events at the end were parsimonious! They screwed it up! ... I'll never watch it again! | 0neg
|
I have never seen anything as awful as this movie for quite some time. The movie was boring, long long and awful plot. The special effects sucks like hell - It's like watching a movie back in 1999. It's a total waste of an hour and a half of my time. Matthew Settle's performance was quite bad. I saw him in Band of Brothers playing Lt.Speirs, he wasn't THAT bad. In fact not bad at all. But in this film, his acting wasn't convincing enough, it was quite bad and there wasn't any chemistry between the rest of the crew either. Plus, his eyes seems empty like he's not feeling it. It surprised me, really, because he was good in Band of Brothers.<br /><br />Anyway, don't even bother to watch this movie. It's a big big BIG waste of time. Even if you had to kill an hour or two, get something else to do besides watching this movie. Trust me, you'll regret it! | 0neg
|
I actually went to see this film in a theater, but what a complete waste of time and money! Bad acting, I'm sorry to say, did not help to enjoy this rather sticky screenplay.<br /><br />Some friends told me to go and see this film, since James Redfield, the author of the book, was very heavily involved in the screenplay. They had really enjoyed the book, so the movie just had to be perfect. Well maybe I had my hopes up a bit too high, but I absolutely hated this movie! It was predictable, too sweetish to a point that I actually left I had to vomit and worst of all there is going to be a sequel! Do the world a favor and stop this abominable crusade. | 0neg
|
I actually didn't enjoy this movie.<br /><br />I saw it at a camp, and we didn't rave about it, we laughed at it. Sure, some parts are touching, but the acting is terrible, the effects are terrible, and the whole overall movie idea is terrible (now, I know it was based on a book which I haven't read, but I hope that the book was better than this, because frankly, I thought that this movie was very bad and boring). Like I said, I went to it with a bunch of people from a camp, and we were excited to be there, plus I got a caffeinated drink, but nonetheless, I struggled to stay awake. The only thing that kept me up (other than my fear of being embarrassed once I woke up) was the gunshots, that were quite pointless as well. I just really didn't like it. | 0neg
|
This movie is nothing but a religious tract promoting classic Hinduism and New Age Occultism dressed up with Western images to be swallowed by those who are ignorant of foundational religious comparisons. Basic tenants of Hinduism contain elements of reincarnation. (Some of the characters appear both in the present time and also in the 1600's) obviously reincarnated. God is an impersonal force. Animal life and plant life are all the same. (This is Pantheism). Redfield has tried to mix Eastern Mysticism with Western Christianty. His attempt at syncretism may fool or confuse those who are not seekers of truth but this movie is a feeble excuse for any ultimate reality. As the ad in the old Berkeley Barb used to say for $10.00 will show you how to start your own religion. As one famous prophet has said, "Use the Force Luke". | 0neg
|
slow, incomprehensible, boring. Three enthusiastic words that describe the movie of the book. This is surely a case where the movie should never have been made at the expense of the book. The best part of the movie was the scenery, excellent. The worst part was the slow moving interactions of the actors which combined with endless meaningful glances. The editing is abrupt and patchy. However, despite this, the actors worked very hard at least trying to be a little believable with a terrible script. It was startling that although set in Peru there was hardly a person of Peruvian descent wandering about the set - even in the flashback scenes depicting Peru in the 17th century. If you have any sense of history, try to avoid this movie. | 0neg
|
The book that this movie is based on seriously changed my life. But saying this movie was a disappointment is an understatement. The acting, directing, cinematography, and storyline were all horrible. I would never recommend this movie to anyone. I've told countless people about the book but will now be telling them all that they should definitely not see the movie! I did not expect the plot to follow the book exactly, but they have left out too many key components of the book. The movie tried, but failed, to deliver a powerful and inspiring message and only demeaned the central theme of the prophecy. While putting myself in the position who had not read the book, I saw the Celestine Prophecy as a bunch of hoaxy B.S. I am thoroughly disappointed with Redfield for the way this movie turned out. | 0neg
|
I agree with the majority of the comments I have seen written. I grew up watching Seseme Street before a lot of the people who have written comments were even born. I was born in 1964, so I was 5-yrs-old when Seseme Street was introduced to television. The show taught me my numbers (The Count), spelling (the Muppet), and about life. I liked all the old characters (Big Bird, Oscar, Grover, and Cookie Monster) and don't quite understand why they had to change. I understand that everything has to change in some way, but to make Cookie Monster into a "veggie monster" to promote healthy eating. The show has introduced new characters and monsters since it's inception, why not make a separate "veggie monster" that talks/discusses the benefits of eating a varied diet with Cookie Monster. But, back to my point. I grew up watching the very beginning of Seseme Street, my now 20 yr-old daughter grew up watching SS with me along side her, and we discussed Mr. Hooper dying, although he had died prior to her being born, as well as other topics on the show. I saw the episode as a older child, and still remember how well they portrayed the event, much like real life. And I'm sure it hit the cast extremely hard as all deaths and losses effect families. You saw this on the show and it allowed parents and children to discuss very difficult events. The show has talked about traditional families, adoptive families and combined families. It's one of the few shows that actually discusses these scenarios. I now have a 5 yr-old daughter who really doesn't watch SS. I've tried to watch the show a couple of times, but, it really is not what it used to be. The Elmo 1/2 hr with Mr. Noodle is absolutely ridiculous. Like many people have said, it doesn't teach anything. It's geared for the less than 18 month old (maybe), and isn't even funny. I always prided myself on watching SS as a child, teen, and adult with my own child. Now on my second go-round, I really have a hard time watching SS. The topics that were discussed: death, marriage, non-traditional families, new to neighborhoods, moving away were related to children and adults in a manner easy for 2-99 year old to understand and relate to. Now, there are NO concepts taught, minimal counting, only the occasional mention of the alphabet. It is NOT the same SS, from an original watcher of the show. PLEASE if any producers from the show read these comments, return the show to its foundation. New concepts have never been a problem with SS, they just used to have a better way to incorporate them into the show. | 0neg
|
My husband and I bought the Old School Sesame Street DVD's for our daughter and I have to say, I don't let her watch the new episodes on TV, because I find ALL of the characters annoying. Baby Bear AND Telly? OMgosh, How ANNOYING and useless blabber can someone think of for their 'skits'? Elmo? Give it a rest not every kid likes him, once again, annoying and doesn't teach my child ANYTHING. Mr. Noodle? what a reject. I think the one time I turned the 'new' show on for her, she and I were left dumber than before. The show has Definitely taken a wrong turn. I remember the Yip Yips, Kermit's Breaking News, 1-2 2 Little Dolls, Mumford the Magician, Bert and Ernie, Grover the Waiter, all the GREAT EDUCATIONAL skits of OLD SCHOOL S.S. Sesame Street has suffered a direct hit of boredom and dumbness since Jim Henson's passing in 1990. The show no longer has the educational, funny and interactive skits it used to. I find the new versions simply unbearably annoying and full of useless non-educational blabber. Way to go S.S. producers/writers you have yet another cartoony show for the parents to sit there non-creative, non-exercised kids in front of so they'll get out of their hair. Per Producers/Writers : I suggest you whip out the old muppets and start taping similar content to that of the first Sesame Street's. Lord knows I sure don't want my child talking like Baby Bear or Elmo. | 0neg
|
"A death at a college campus appears to be a suicide but is actually a cover for murder. The dead man's roommate finds himself embroiled in a mystery as he tries to uncover the truth behind the young man's murder. Twists and turns, as well as some false leads, makes this a tough case for our collegiate hero to solve, let alone (keep) out of the clutches of the killer," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />The stars may be bigger than the movie. Handsome Charles Starrett (as Ken Harris), who has a small "lingerie" scene, became one of the top western stars of the forties, peaking in "The Return of the Durango Kid" (1945). The man playing his father, Robert Warwick (as Joseph Harris), was one of the most respected actors of the teens, beginning with his performance in "Alias Jimmy Valentine" (1915). Watch out for red herrings. <br /><br />**** A Shot in the Dark (2/1/35) Charles Lamont ~ Charles Starrett, Robert Warwick, James Bush | 0neg
|
SPLIT SECOND might have been a good movie. A story about a "road rage" homicide, has a very young Clive Owen giving a pretty good performance; BUT...but....<br /><br />Unfortunately, the filmmakers undercut their own movie with idiotic camera-work and truly awful editing. The camera jumps all over creation in an unsuccessful attempt (I suppose) to reflect Owen's stress from business, family, and traffic. What this actually does is to give the viewer a headache.<br /><br />Since the filmmakers cared nothing about making a good movie, but only to impress each other with their idiotic photography, one ought not waste time on this travesty. | 0neg
|
I won't describe the story, as that has been done elsewhere. We are great Clive Owen fans, and when our Netflix recommended the movie, we were intrigued. <br /><br />No wonder we had never heard of this "movie", because it was a BBC Television movie back in 1992. Hence, the poor production values, grainy image , jerky camera work and poor sound.<br /><br />But, you don't really mind the mechanics, because the story itself will put you to sleep. It's an interesting human story, but not at all compelling, and there is hardly any ending. You don't really care for the characters as their lives are as boring as your life watching this tedious movie. Save the two hours and do something to make the time more worthwhile. | 0neg
|
This Worldwide was the cheap man's version of what the NWA under Jim Crockett Junior and Jim Crockett Promotions made back in the 1980s on the localized "Big 3" Stations during the Saturday Morning/Afternoon Wrestling Craze. When Ted Turner got his hands on Crockett's failed version of NWA he turned it into World Championship Wrestling and proceeded to drop all NWA references all together. NWA World Wide and NWA Pro Wrestling were relabeled with the WCW logo and moved off the road to Disney/MGM Studios in Orlando, Florida and eventually became nothing more than recap shows for WCW's Nitro, Thunder, and Saturday Night. Worldwide was officially the last WCW program under Turner to air the weekend of the WCW buyout from Vince McMahon and WWF. Today the entire NWA World Wide/WCW Worldwide Video Tape Archive along with the entire NWA/WCW Video Tape Library in general lay in the vaults of WWE Headquarters in Stamford,Connecticut. | 0neg
|
This film has nothing whatever to do with the Sphinx, and the title is just a come-on. The story concerns an imagined true and concealed tomb in the Valley of the Kings, of King Seti I, second pharaoh of the 19th Dynasty, New Kingdom period. It is not a bad yarn, and a great deal of the film is shot on location. Even the scenes in the Winter Palace Hotel lobby in Luxor were really shot there, and not in a studio. The second unit stuff is endless, and they must have been let loose on Egypt for weeks. Frank Langella is very good indeed as a sophisticated Egyptian. He should take it up as a sideline. The film is essentially ruined by one of the world's most irritating actresses, Lesley Anne Down, who plays the lead. She spends the whole film wondering how she looks, are her blue eyes refracting light at the correct angle, do all the fellas lust after her, etc. Having started life as a model at the age of ten, what hope could there be for her? She epitomises everything that is most revolting about female vanity and dim-witted inanity. And to think that this film was directed by Franklin Shaffner, who won an Oscar for 'Patton'! He allows this terrible actress to whimper and simper through the film, hysterical one moment, flirting the next, in a kind of hurricane of idiocy as she reels from one man to another, either screaming or making bedroom eyes, it matters not. She is supposed to be a young Egyptologist. But she has never been to Egypt before! She takes a taxi to Giza and catching her first glimpse of the pyramids, gushes in ecstasy: 'But they're so BIG!!!!' Barf! OK, so that was the script, but she takes to the banality too readily, giving the impression that it is her natural element, which I don't doubt for a minute. Elements of the story are sound. There is, indeed, a serious problem about a black market in antiquities there. True! Well done! The novel by Robin Cook, which I have not seen, may be OK for all I know. It was fun to see the name of Cyril Swern as sound recordist on the film, as I knew him pretty well long ago. Stanley Kubrick's step-daughter Katharina is described as 'draughtswoman'. I wonder what that means? Maybe she did some set work. Anyway, the antiquities in the film are pretty good, actually. And we get to see lots of the Cairo Museum and numerous scenic locations. They actually go inside King Tutankhamun's Tomb! I don't imagine that would be allowed today for a movie. A lot of inappropriate scenes take place in mosques. That would not go down well today, but in 1981 such things were not on the agenda. The music for the film is absolutely appalling, worse than Lesley Anne Down in fact! But there were sound track elements which were surprisingly authentic, one being the cacophony of traffic noise of Cairo, which is accurately rendered in the background, and would make anyone who knows Cairo chuckle nervously. Also, the loudspeaker calls to prayer are there the whole time, another touch of authenticity. Why didn't they get this right? It could have been good. | 0neg
|
Rather foolish attempt at a Hitchcock-type mystery-thriller, improbably exchanging espionage for archaeology and based on the Robin Cook novel; incidentally, I’ve recently acquired another adaptation of his work – COMA (1978) – in honor of the late Richard Widmark. For the record, director Schaffner had just made THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL (1978) – a similarly fanciful but much more engrossing suspenser and, unfortunately, SPHINX was a false step from which his so-far impressive career would not recover.<br /><br />Despite its scope and reasonably decent cast, however, this one proved a critical and commercial flop – mainly because the narrative just isn’t very thrilling: in fact, it’s quite dreary (feeble attempts at horror – the archaeologist heroine having to put up with entombment, rotting corpses galore, and even an attack by a flurry of bats – notwithstanding). Lesley Anne-Down is the lovely leading lady, stumbling upon a lost treasure – it’s actually been hidden away by a local sect to prevent it from falling into the hands of foreigners, who have appropriated much of the country’s heritage (under the pretext of culture) for far too long. Sir John Gielgud turns up in a thankless bit early on as the antique dealer who puts Down on the way of the loot, and pays for this ‘act of treason’ with his life.<br /><br />Typically, it transpires that some characters are the opposite of what they claim to be – so that apparent allies (such as Maurice Ronet) are eventually exposed as villains, while an ambiguous figure (Frank Langella, whom I saw at London in early 2007 in a West End performance of “Frost/Nixon”, which has now been turned into a film) goes from Down’s antagonist to her lover and back again, as he determines to keep the wealth belonging to Egyptian high priest Menephta a national treasure. | 0neg
|
Some nice scenery, but the story itself--in which a self-proclaimed Egyptologist (Lesley-Anne Down) visits Egypt and, in the course of doing Egyptologist things in the most un-Egyptologistic of ways (e.g., flash photography in the tombs, the handling of old parchment, etc.), uncovers a black market turf war and somehow (in the span of two days, no less!) becomes that war's jumpsuit-wearing epicenter--is more puzzling than any riddle the Sphinx ever posed. Down is simply awful as the visiting British scholar (that she seems to know absolutely nothing about the culture of Egypt and even less about antiquities is the fault of the writers, certainly; but that she's annoying as all get out is her own fault entirely), and the rest of the cast, including Sir John Gielgud and Frank Langella, seem as downright confused by the proceedings as I was. In short, not what you'd expect from Schaffner (Planet of the Apes, Patton) and co.<br /><br />Worth watching for a laughably dated scene in which Down rails against all male scholars, blaming them for her failure as an academic, while bathed under the softest light Hollywood could muster. To top it off, she spends the next hour of the film shrieking and harried and running into the arms of any dude she can find. Wow, talk about your performative irony!<br /><br />*Note to would-be Egyptologists: take a year or two of Arabic in grad school. It'll really help out in the long run... | 0neg
|
The Robin Cook novel "Coma" had already been turned into a pretty successful movie in 1978. A couple of years later it was the turn of another Robin Cook bestseller to get the big screen treatment , but in the case of "Sphinx" virtually everything that could go wrong does go wrong. This is a dreadful adventure flick consisting of wooden performances, stupid dialogue, unconvincing characters and leaden pacing. The only reason it escapes a 1-out-of-10 rating is that the Egyptian backdrop provides infinitely more fascination than the story itself. Hard to believe Franklin J. Schaffner (of "Patton" and "Planet Of The Apes") is the director behind this debacle.<br /><br />Pretty Egyptologist Erica Baron (Lesley Anne-Down) is on a working vacation in Cairo when she stumbles across the shop of antiques dealer Abdu-Hamdi (John Gielgud). Hamdi befriends Erica and is impressed by her enthusiasm and knowledge. Consequently, he shows her a beautiful and incredibly rare statue of Pharoah Seti I that he is keeping secretly in his shop. The very existence of the statue arouses intense excitement in Erica, for it could provide vital clues in locating Seti I's long-lost tomb, a prize as great as the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb in 1922. Before Hamdi can tell Erica any more he is brutally murdered in his shop, with Erica watching in silent terror as he meets his grisly end. Afraid yet tantalised by what she has seen, Erica attempts to track down the treasure. She finds herself helped and hindered in her quest by various other parties, none of whom are truly trustworthy. For one there is Yvon (Maurice Ronet), seemingly a friend but perhaps a man with sinister ulterior motives? Then there is Akmed Khazzan (Frank Langella), an Egyptian for whom Erica feels a certain attraction but who may also be hiding dangerous secrets from her.<br /><br />The biggest problems with "Sphinx" generally result from its total disregard for plausibility. Down couldn't be less convincing as a female Egyptologist one assumes she would be quite well-educated and resourceful, yet she spends the entire film screaming helplessly like some busty bimbo from a teen slasher flick. On those rare occasions that she actually isn't running from a potential villain, she does other brainless things such as taking Polaroid flash photos in a 4,000 year old tomb! The plot twists are heavy-handed to say the least, mainly comprising of revelations and double-crosses that can be predicted well in advance. One can't even try to enjoy the film on the level of dumb but entertaining action fare, because the pacing is awfully sluggish. What little action can be found is separated by long stretches of tedium. A famous review of the movie declared: "Sphinx stinks!" Never before has a 2-hour film been so aptly summed up in 2 words. | 0neg
|
When this movie was released, it spawned one of the all-time great capsule movie reviews: Sphinx Stinks. It does, but in a mesmerizing sort of way. The casting is silly, starting at the top: Frank Langella and Sir John Gielgud as Egyptians? Not enough makeup in Cairo for that, at least not while this film was being made. But it's rather amusing to see them try. The performances run the gamut from mummy-like (sorry, the obvious observation) to over-the-top, with very few stops in between. The Lesley-Anne Down character seems as though she couldn't find Egypt on a map, much less expound upon its archaeological treasures. That's due at least in part to some really bad writing, one of the curses that will be visited upon every viewer of this movie. It's my opinion that movies involving a curse or that draw their basis from a subject that is somewhat esoteric, such as Egyptology, are ripe for silly, overwritten dialogue. It doesn't disappoint, and the convergence proves a double-whammy. The plot has one driving source of dramatic tension: Can this get dumber and less believable? The answer is, usually, YES. The location shots are beautiful, and the set design is generally very good, the only consistent reminders that this wasn't some low-budget production. That and the fact that there are so many well-known faces doing service in such an unintentional laugher. Cheap, no; cheesy, yes. | 0neg
|
The most misogynistic movie of all time? Not to mention by '68 shouldn't they have moved beyond white people in brown face playing the "Indians"? My favorite parts though have to be when the girls giggle and blush as the bikers drag them off to gang rape them. Rape is fun! Who knew? Let's see, then there's the blatant rip-offs of "The Hustler" (fat boss character actually plays pool while scheming to destroy the Indians with the lead rebel dude), the horrific acting, the so-on-the-nose-they-might-as-well-have-just-told-you-what-to-think music cues, the lack of ANYONE WHO'S ACTUALLY Indian in this movie. And who are we supposed to be rooting for? I have to say it figures that Quentin Tarantino loves this movie. Even though his movies tend to champion strong women, I've heard from at least one source that in real life he's a misogynistic idiot. Why did I watch it, you ask? Don't ask. | 0neg
|
The whole Biker Movie genre has to be made up of the worst films ever made. This one delivers a lot of fighting, generous amounts of blood, bikers fighting Indians, and a shanty town that gets blown up and torn down one shack at a time. The acting is beyond terrible. What ever happened to Robert Walker, Jr.? At one point he was in some major studio productions, and then he just faded away. This movie really blows, but if you have not seen a Biker movie in a long time, it is a good one to watch. At the end of the movie, you should feel a bit trashy for having watched it! | 0neg
|
Irwin Allen was great. All of his TV shows had a great pilot, or first episode. the rest were basically rip offs of his other shows. A few episodes of Swiss Family Robinson were rip offs of his older TV shows. One episode of Swiss Family is identical to an episode of Land Of The Giants when a member of the party needs an appendix operation. The show was high budget and too expensive to continue. Irwin lost his touch with TV shows after the 60s. The acting is strong with Martin Milner. Child stars got there starts with this show like Willie Ames and Helen Hunt. one bright spot is when Irwin Allen incorporates his disaster scenes like a typhoon and a volcanic eruption dubbing him the " Master of Disaster " | 0neg
|
Three Stooges - Have Rocket, Will Travel - 1959 This was the first feature length film to star the Stooges and it is pretty bad. It makes THE THREE STOOGES GO AROUND THE WORLD IN A DAZE (from 1963) look like a masterpiece.<br /><br />The Stooges are janitors at a rocket place. They climb into a rocket and it goes to Venus. They meet some stuff there including a talking unicorn they call "Uni" which they bring back to Earth with them. "Uni" speaks like an average, pleasant person - 'Oh, hello. How are you? Lovely planet here. Hope you like it.' Hilarious.<br /><br />Very few gags and so many of the scenes just go on and on and on.<br /><br />The Stooges arrive back from space and the film is over as far as the story goes, but no one told that to the film makers for the picture continues for another 10 minutes or so at a party where nothing much happens. The Stooges leave the party and then the film is almost over.<br /><br />High point of the film - the end where the Stooges sing a dapper little song about their journey. The Larry and Curly Joe hit Moe in the face with two pies. Brutal.<br /><br />Another writer mentioned the fine musical score. Huh? The only music I even noticed were two classic tunes - I'LL TAKE ROMANCE and THERE GOES THAT SONG AGAIN, both of which are played at the party. And *that* really is the high point of the picture - music from old Columbia films.<br /><br />The tall sexy blonde was nice.<br /><br />Awful - a brand new VHS video from the 99 Cents Only store. | 0neg
|
Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.<br /><br />Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie: <br /><br />* From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.<br /><br />* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.<br /><br />* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.<br /><br />* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.<br /><br />* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.<br /><br />* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.<br /><br />In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please. | 0neg
|
There's plenty to appreciate here: spectacular locations and flying sequences; period costumes, props and sets; and competent writing and acting. However, to enjoy a drama, we need at least one principal who exhibits some qualities that we can like or admire. In this bunch of catty snobs, we found only one character who is at all likable a hapless enlisted man in a fleeting peripheral role as their helpless victim. From the reviews here, it is clear that we are completely out of step, but we did not find their malicious-schoolgirl behavior amusing or entertaining. Even the dog is detestable. We threw in the towel after two of the six episodes, so you should discount these observations accordingly, but what I could find written about this mini-series gave us no cause to expect character transformation or redemption. | 0neg
|
I bought this DVD set, sight unseen, and wish I hadn't. The script needed some serious rewriting as it seems to be completely devoid of any feeling and pales in comparison to the book. The lighting is horrid, very unpolished, but if it was just that I could overlook it. The script doesn't focus enough on the characters...there is hardly an introduction to various characters making it a tad difficult to distinguish who is who(especially in the planes--no idea who dies when).<br /><br />I have long felt that the key to a good film is in getting the audience to care about the characters; if you don't have that you don't have anything. There was no focus on the characters at all--you never got to know them--who they were, what they liked..what made them do the things that they do. The series is 5 hours long and split up into 6 parts...I bet you are wondering what they did with all this time if they didn't detail the characters---they put a lot of filler in it....I will say at least an entire hour is spent watching them land and take off in their planes LOL (I mean do we really need to see that over and over again???). I would have given this a much higher rating had they just improved our knowledge of the characters. | 0neg
|
"Piece is Cake" is defeatist, revisionist history of the worst kind, whose only point is to unfairly savage the reputation of the (admittedly fictional) pilots it portrays. It left a remarkably bad taste in my mouth.<br /><br />In the March 1989 "Aeroplane Monthly", Roland Beamont wrote a stinging condemnation of the way that RAF Fighter Command was portrayed in the TV mini-series. A few of his comments are worth repeating:<br /><br />"There was no sense of defeatism at any time in any of the squadrons that I saw in action, and a total absence of the loutishness portrayed in 'Piece of Cake'. It would not have been tolerated for a moment... ...The prevailing atmosphere was more akin to that in a good rugby club, though with more discipline. Nor was there any sense of 'death or glory'. RAF training had insisted that we were there to defend this country, and now we were required to do it - no more and no less.<br /><br />"There was no discussion of 'bravery' or 'cowardice'. People either had guts or they did not - but mostly they did. But we knew fear, recognised it in ourselves and in each other, did our damnedness to control it, and then got on with the job...<br /><br />"...I could feel no 'glory', but there was a sense of greatness, and none of this bore the slightest resemblance to 'Piece of Cake'."<br /><br />Beamont was, in his own words, "a fighter pilot who, unlike the author and producer of the recent TV series, was there at the time".<br /><br />Beamont served with 87 Squadron both in France and the BoB, before going on to become one of the premier exponents of both the Typhoon and Tempest, and a post-war test pilot.<br /><br />"Piece of Cake" is an absolute, total misrepresentation of the way pilots in Fighter Command acted at the time. It is nothing less than a complete and utter disgrace... | 0neg
|
The trouble with the book, "Memoirs of a Geisha" is that it had Japanese surfaces but underneath the surfaces it was all an American man's way of thinking. Reading the book is like watching a magnificent ballet with great music, sets, and costumes yet performed by barnyard animals dressed in those costumesso far from Japanese ways of thinking were the characters.<br /><br />The movie isn't about Japan or real geisha. It is a story about a few American men's mistaken ideas about Japan and geisha filtered through their own ignorance and misconceptions. So what is this movie if it isn't about Japan or geisha? Is it pure fantasy as so many people have said? Yes, but then why make it into an American fantasy?<br /><br />There were so many missed opportunities. Imagine a culture where there are no puritanical hang-ups, no connotations of sin about sex. Sex is natural and normal. How is sex handled in this movie? Right. Like it was dirty. The closest thing to a sex scene in the movie has Sayuri wrinkling up her nose and grimacing with distaste for five seconds as if the man trying to mount her had dropped a handful of cockroaches on her crotch. <br /><br />Does anyone actually enjoy sex in this movie? Nope. One character is said to be promiscuous but all we see is her pushing away her lover because it looks like she doesn't want to get caught doing something dirty. Such typical American puritanism has no place in a movie about Japanese geisha.<br /><br />Did Sayuri enjoy her first ravishing by some old codger after her cherry was auctioned off? Nope. She lies there like a cold slab of meat on a chopping block. Of course she isn't supposed to enjoy it. And that is what I mean about this movie. Why couldn't they have given her something to enjoy? Why does all the sex have to be sinful and wrong?<br /><br />Behind Mameha the Chairman was Sayuri's secret patron, and as such he was behind the auction of her virginity. He could have rigged the auction and won her himself. Nobu didn't even bid. So why did the Chairman let that old codger win her and, reeking of old-man stink, get his fingers all over her naked body? Would any woman ever really forgive a man for that?<br /><br />Let's try to make sense of this. By being behind Mameha the Chairman incurred debts for Sayuri's geisha training. In order to recoup his debts the Chairman had Sayuri sold to Dr. Crab. Through Mameha the Chairman sold Sayuri's sexual favors to that old geezer so that the Chairman could make some money out of her. The Chairman wasn't her patron. He was her pimp! Some romantic love story.<br /><br />Yes, the film is gorgeous but it is like the beauty of a very attractive, alluring transvestite whose voice, appearance and every touch are thrilling. But under that very feminine surface lies an ominous secret. Under the incorrectly appearing Japanese surface of the film lurks the ominous secret that the heart, soul, spirit and core of this film is entirely American and male. Not the best thing to be if it is trying to be other than a lie, distortion, and terribly wrong.<br /><br />Some contrasts between Japan and MOAG:<br /><br />Japanese style Refined, elegant simplicity. MOAG style Peking Opera.<br /><br />Japanese geisha Hair swept up. MOAG geisha Loose hair which surely must have gotten all gunked up in the thick paste of white makeup.<br /><br />Japanese shaved ice - Japanese are rather strict about seasonal observances. Shaved ice is strictly a summer treat. MOAG shaved ice - The Chairman buys Chiyo, the young Sayuri played by the marvelous Suzuka Ohgo, this treat during cherry-blossom-viewing season. The thought made my entire body shiver with cold.<br /><br />Japanese geisha Trained and skilled entertainers. MOAG geisha - sluts.<br /><br />Japanese wind chime - Used in the summer because hearing the sound it makes, thanks to the breeze, Japanese people feel somehow cooler. MOAG wind chime - a door bell! If a person stood in front of another's house and made noises with a wind chime they would be considered a lunatic, not gain entrance.<br /><br />Japan Emphasis on human relationships, group oriented. MOAG "I want a life that's mine" American individualism.<br /><br />Japanese traditional dance Refined elegance. An almost geometrical and mechanical precision. MOAG dance Martha Graham freaking out on LSD while wearing a not-very-auspicious white Japanese funeral shroud. Performed by a geisha down a ramp in a place that looks like a strip club? Ha ha ha! Is a strip club where they did most of their research on geisha?<br /><br />Japan house fire Setting or even letting a fire break out is worse than murder because it poses such a dire threat to the community. Fires can rip through those wooden villages, towns, and cities destroying hundreds or thousands of homes and killing as many people. MOAG house fire - Great adjunct to a fight scene but there are zero ramifications and because it is no longer needed the out-of-control fire miraculously puts itself out. Technically the movie ended here because at the very least Sayuri would have been ostracized and joined her sister among those never heard from again. Which is where both Arthur Golden and Rob Marshall should be exiled.<br /><br />Enough. The movie stinks. | 0neg
|
Even though the book wasn't strictly accurate to the real situation it described it still carried a sense of Japan. I find it hard to believe that anyone who was involved in making this film had ever been to japan as it didn't feel Japanese in the slightest. Almost everything about it was terrible. I will admit the actors were generally quite good but couldn't stand a chance of saving it. Before the film started I was surprised that there were only ten people in the cinema on a Friday night shortly after the movie had opened in Japan. 30 minutes in I was amazed they stayed. I stayed so I would have the right to criticize it. The whole movie was punctuated my groans and suppressed laughs of disbelief from my Japanese girlfriend. Everyone I saw walking out of that cinema had looks of confusion and disappointment on their faces. <br /><br />To the makers of this movie, you owe me two hours. | 0neg
|
Having lived in Japan for several years this movie does not reflect the Japanese culture and does not even come close to explain what being a Geisha is all about. Unfortunately, a great opportunity has been missed to bring the Japanese culture a bit closer to the broad Western audience and help demystify the country where Zen, Samurai, the Geisha world of Kyoto originate from. Some of the most poignant moments of the movie are when the Americans are shown in Japanese surroundings.The Geisha dances were not authentic. There was far too much use of Chinese music. A minor but essential detail: proper use of the incense sticks was nowhere to be seen. The Sakura scenes were almost obscenely kitschy ! Interestingly, some of the Chinese actors were quite convincing as Japanese persons. | 0neg
|
Rather then long dance sequences and close ups of the characters which made the film drag on - the movie would have been better served explaining the story and motivations of the characters.<br /><br />The marginalisation of Nubo, the minister, auntie, mother - and the dumbing down of the dynamic and IMPORTANT rivalry between hatsumo and mameha and hatsumo and sayuri made the movie lack any real depth. If you hadn't read the book you would not really understand why Sayuri loved the Chairman and why Mameha became her mentor at all.<br /><br />Visually the film was stunning - and the actors all did the best with the C rate script they were given, but that was all that was good about this movie. | 0neg
|
I love Memoirs of a Geisha so I read the book twice; it is one of the best book I've read last year. I was looking forward to the movie and was afraid that reading the book would ruin the viewing pleasure of the movie. I wasn't expecting the movie to be that bad. Some of the best part of the book was omitted from the movie and the characters were weak with Hatsumomo (Li Gong)been the worst. If I haven't read the book, this movie would be a little confusing and inexplicable. The Plot Outline of the movie states "Nitta Sayuri reveals how she transcended her fishing..." Did anyone see how or when Sayuri became Nitta Sayuri? Forget the movie and read the book. | 0neg
|
"Memoirs of a Geisha" is a visually stunning melodrama that seems more like a camp, drag queen satire than anything to do with real people.<br /><br />The first half of the film defensively keeps insisting that geishas are neither prostitutes nor concubines, that they are the embodiment of traditional Japanese beauty. But other than one breathtaking dance, the rest of the movie degenerates into "Pretty Baby" in Storyville territory, or at least Vashti and Esther in the Purim story, as all the women's efforts at art and artifice are about entertaining much, much older, drunken boorish men. Maybe it is Japanese culture that is being prostituted, and not just to the American louts after World War II.<br /><br />Perhaps it's the strain of speaking in English, but Ziyi Zhang shows barely little of the great flare she demonstrated in "House of Flying Daggers (Shi mian mai fu)" and "Hero (Ying xiong)." Michelle Yeoh occasionally gets to project a glimmer of her assured performance in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Wo hu cang long)." Only Li Gong shows any real life. Otherwise, I kept picturing Charles Ludlam in various roles, or even Cillian Murphy, as in kabuki theater, particularly as the plot dragged down in cat fight after cat fight.<br /><br />The supposed love story has zero chemistry, mostly due to the age differences, and I mostly felt sorry for Ken Watanabe and hoped his Hollywood pay check compensated for his loss of dignity as the mysterious "Chairman." I remember more emotion in "Portrait of Jennie" as the young girl is anxious to grow up into Jennifer Jones to please Joseph Cotton.<br /><br />We see brief glimpses of reality when the geishas pose with regular women as photographic attractions, and as an ageless Ziyi Zhang lives out the war years in a very colorful kimono dying operation. The finale has little sense of normality.<br /><br />The score includes many chopped up traditional melodies, with cello by Yo Yo Ma and violin by Yitzhack Pearlman instead of traditional instrumentation, that are beautiful to listen to in accompaniment to the lovely cinematography, as long as one completely ignores the plot and stiff acting.<br /><br />As my mind wandered, I wondered how the great Japanese directors of samurai movies would have dealt with this story, which probably would have been more formal, but a lot more emotional. | 0neg
|
Andrewjlau, I could not agree more. My girlfriend is watching this at this very moment, and I find this movie appalling. Quote from my Chinese girlfriend, laughing: "They are doing all this for a man!?" <br /><br />I find these women have no intensity, no sense of the a fight between tragedy and identity, and that these men are hardly worth fighting for. During the dance scene where Zhang Zi Yi wins them over, the men look stupid more than admiring.<br /><br />Japanese people have much more intensity than Chinese people, and being geisha is Japanese culture. I am sure the Chinese had something similar, but the faces do not match the main.<br /><br />Anyway, the dialogue is so unmysterious, so American. Had a European done it with European orientals, they would have done a far better job.<br /><br />I have to add: it seems most of the people who liked the film are American. Sorry to say, but no wonder. All spelt out for you, not instinctive, not passionate. I think the Chinese actresses are lovely, but I could not say they were good actors in this film. Yes, the cinematography is great, but really, I cannot see how it can be seen that these characters are complex, deep individuals.<br /><br />I'm going to Japan to see the real thing. I am sure that would be amazing to see. | 0neg
|
Despite an overall pleasing plot and expensive production one wonders how a director can make so many clumsy cultural mistakes. Where were the Japanese wardrobe and cultural consultants? Not on the payroll apparently. <br /><br />A Japanese friend of mine actually laughed out loud at some of the cultural absurdities she watched unfold before her eyes. In a later conversation she said, "Imagine a Finnish director making a movie in Fnnish about the American Civil War using blond Swedish actors as union Army and Frenchmen as the Confederates. Worse imagine dressing the Scarlet O'Hara female lead in a period hoop skirt missing the hoop and sporting a 1950's hairdo. Maybe some people in Finland might not realize that the hoop skirt was "missing the hoop" or recognize the bizarre Jane Mansfield hair, but in Atlanta they would not believe their eyes or ears....and be laughing in the aisles...excellent story and photography be damned.<br /><br />So...watching Memoirs of a Geisha was painful for anyone familiar with Japanese cultural nuances, actual geisha or Japanese dress, and that was the topic of the movie! Hollywood is amazing in its myopic view of film making. They frequently get the big money things right while letting the details that really polish a films refinement embarrassingly wrong. I thought "The Last Samurai" was the crowning achievement of how bad an otherwise good film on Japan could be. Memoirs of a Geisha is embarrassingly better and worse at the same time. | 0neg
|
American film makers decided to make a film they think is Japanese. The characters all badly represented, the actors are not even Japanese and the set is cheap, unreal and definitely doesn't represent Kyoto in Early 20ties and 30ties. Who ever read the book understand that the script writers didn't add any extra value to differentiate the movie from the script. Worse, they even changed the original plot line with a few goofs. Rob Marshall is using for his two main characters two well known Chinese actors who joined before in crouching tiger hidden dragon. Marshall probably saw one Chinese movie and tho they represent Japanese culture. Seeing those two actors together again even makes the movies more ridiculous. Quentine Tarantino's last scene in Kill Bill #1 is ten times more Japanese made than that of this movie. | 0neg
|
Memoirs of a Geisha is a beautifully filmed movie, there is no doubt about that. And the acting is generally excellent, at least in terms of how it portrays the characters as they are scripted.<br /><br />However, so many details small and large are just _wrong_ that it just bothers me too much to be able to enjoy it fully. A small detail that typifies the kind of lack of sensitivity of sorts is one scene (no this does not spoil anything) where Mameha rings a bell that hangs at the door of the house where Sayuri lives, on a snowy winter day. The bell she's ringing is a fuurin, or wind chime - that is only left hanging outside of houses in Japan in the summer! People in traditional Japanese homes didn't have doorbells - they just opened the door and announced themselves. (You may think this is such a trivial detail, but I would equate this to a movie made about America where a Christmas wreath is hanging on the door in July and no one thinks anything of it.) And don't even get me started on the totally wrong hairstyles given to the maiko and geisha, which is vaguely pan-Asian/Chinese/kung-fu-ish, and nothing like real thing. I think this rather cavalier attitude towards the culture they are trying to portray really comes out in the attitudes and the portrayals of people and situations too. <br /><br />So, I suppose that the less you know about Japanese culture and the world of the geisha and maiko in Kyoto (which is what "Miyako" is), then I suppose the more you will enjoy this. I honestly think this movie could have been so much better...as it is, it's just another Hollywood version of "exotic Japan". | 0neg
|
A slow, tedious, and one dimensional movie! Good casting with clichéd dialogue, boring story line, and soulless direction from Mr Marshal! The conventional and predictable story of the most famous form of prostitution from the Asian continent, lacks heart, new insights, and depth. The lead character looks out of place due to her tiny phisique and phony looking contact lenses. The lexicon employed by the geishas sounds forced and a bit too sophisticated for their limited exposure in the ways of education. The story goes on and on for hours trying to convince you this little, boring, flat chested Asian girl is the ultimate Geisha, they actually say in the movie "She is destined to become a legend" i say hardy the case! The movie is just plain boring, it is beautiful to look at, it has a very few interesting moments as many as you may find by going out for cigarretes. Basically, if you don't believe the messenger you wont believe the message, and this girl didn't fill the shoe! Borin, boring, skip it! | 0neg
|
I admired Rob Marshall for Chicago, but Memoirs of Geisha turns out to be yet another failure of combing western and Asian arts. Overall, the scene is beautiful, but after restless emphasis on exoticism-oriented scenes some might just find himself fed up with them. The excessive cherry blossom was, frankly, overdone. It's probably the cultural difference of perception here: the ultimate beauty is not the showy type, as truly beautiful geisha would not be the over westernised pumpkin in the movie. <br /><br />Some other comments have rightly mentioned the biggest flaws. As a Taiwanese, I have no doubt the actress are great. An actor/actress can play any kind of role when he/she can look like it. Gong Li is great, but the power of emotions that she showed in this movie had not been translated into Japanese style. All I saw was a bittersweet and jealous Chinese WOMAN. Michlle Yeoh, one of my favourtie actress, did not even LOOK LIKE a Japanese. Some comment has mentioned the peculiar delicate, feminine characteristics of Japanese women, with which I can't agree more. These are so delicate that I assume not even all modern Japanese actresses are eligible for the roles in Geisha, let alone the two Chinese and one Malaysian actress who grew up in different cultures and probably did not know Japanese culture that much.<br /><br />Geisha is a good shot for arousing the curiosity of American audiences. But it would be an insult for the movie itself and for art alike if the movie wins the Oscar for best costume, best director or best picture. | 0neg
|
Another double noir on one disc from Warner Home Video and by far the better of the two movies is RKO's marvellous 1950 thriller "Where Danger Loves". This is a memorable classic with a great cast in Robert Mitchum, Faith Domergue and Claude Rains. Crisply photographed in Black & White by Nicholas Musuraca it was tightly directed by John Farrow. "Where Danger Lives" is a prime example of the noir style of picture making and will always be remembered for its stylish craftsmanship that was Hollywood's past - (See my full review).<br /><br />Unfortunately, none of the above praise can be applied to the second movie on the disc, the abysmal MGM 1949 stinker TENSION! Poorly written (Allen Rivkin) and directed by John Berry this movie is full of ludicrous characterisations and unlikely situations. The inconceivable relationship between a mild mannered and wimpish pharmacist - blandly played by Richard Baseheart - and his overtly floozy wife (a risible Audrey Totter) is totally implausible and unconvincing (how on earth they ever got together in the first place is anybody's guess). Then when she "unsurprisingly" ditches him for one of her playmates (Lloyd Gough) our timid pharmacist, instead of being euphoric and over the moon with his new found good fortune, plots revenge and attempts to kill Gough but at the last minute chickens out. The guy gets murdered anyway and our pharmacist is immediately suspected by Homicide detective Barry Sullivan (another bland performance). So who did kill him? Well, at this stage of the movie you really couldn't care less since it is all so badly executed and rendered ridiculous by director Berry. Mr. Berry has no idea of pacing and is unable to inject even a smidgen of style into the thing. There is nothing he can put in front of the camera that will prevent you from nodding off! The only TENSION contained in this movie is in the rubber band that is stretched to its limit and snaps in the fingers of Barry Sullivan as he gives the intro at the film's opening. So much for that! A most unfortunate effort! C'est La Vie!<br /><br />Best things about this turkey is the smooth Monochrome Cinematography by the great Harry Stradling, an effective score by a young Andre Previn and an early dramatic appearance by the lovely Cyd Charisse before she found her dancing shoes. Hey! - maybe she could have saved the picture had she given us a few steps and a couple of pirouettes! HUH?<br /><br />In its favour however, are the heaps of extras that are included which boasts trailers, commentaries and featurettes for both films. But the disc is worth it alone for the RKO Mitchum classic! | 0neg
|
True, the setting in Paris is great. The actors are fine. The story is a twisted morality play. Is it supposed to say that if you want someone badly enough, it's OK to hurt everyone else along the way? In a real romance, you sort of want less cliché than the man who has become bored with his wife and is willing to dump his family, and the woman who is OK with encouraging him to do this. So what if they are decent looking and if Karen Allen shows off her body? The characters are still self-absorbed and reprehensible. Maybe the moral of the story is "you get what you deserve". I give it a 4, only for the fast scan potential through the "male interest" bits. | 0neg
|
This movie isn't terrible, really. Somebody commented that Mo is the type of American Europeans snicker at. But there are those, and not necessarily Anglo-Saxon yahoos, who do not care for Frenchmen; and the Xavier character isn't going to sway them.<br /><br />Let's consider his stereotypical Frenchman attributes:<br /><br />1). Cynical - very cynical. Check.<br /><br />2). Reedy, underfed appearance, check, despite:<br /><br />3). A great appreciation of cuisine. Check.<br /><br />4). Lukewarm work ethic. Check. (Forget the fact he is supposedly a rich stockbroker, from watching him in the film he seems to put in ten hour workweeks.) <br /><br />5). Beautiful wife, check. Despite that:<br /><br />6). Loose interpretation of the marriage vows. Check.<br /><br />7). Big sexual ego, which says an American girl owes you sex if you buy her dinner. Check.<br /><br />Whether Mo is a hick or not, there's no reason for her to fall for this smug European twit other than the script dictates so.<br /><br />On the other hand, as other male reviewers have, I did enjoy seeing Karen Allen's cute, petite body. I'll give the movie four stars; two of them are for that. | 0neg
|
Any movie that has nude scenes of Karen Allen and I'm still so bored I walk out, that is a stinker! <br /><br />Karen gets stuck in Paris, and befriends a sissily-handsome French man with whom she is having sex soon. Of course he's married, ("But, cheri, why should that be a problem?") What could be an interesting clash of cultures is (believe it or not) just dull. I walked out. <br /><br />Maybe the movie got a lot better after I left; but it would have had to have gotten a LOT better to make up for a rotten beginning.<br /><br />My advice, if you find yourself in this, run, do not walk, for the exit. Save your time and your energy. Most assuredly save your money. It's a shame the production company didn't save its money. | 0neg
|
Watchable little semi-soaper, but hardly captivating. Still, two or three funny moments. What amazes me is how slippery and morally highly questionable McNicol is. She plays an invalid (a leg problem), yet she not only isn't the "ugly duckling" whom men shun, but she is even a man-eater - and we are supposed to feel for her! Oh, poor little McNicol, with her leg problem... Poor little McNicol??! She is constantly getting passes from men, and even dumps them without so much as blinking! At one occasion she even has a premeditated one-night affair with a blond stud, and then she tells her newly-found French girlfriend quite non-chalantly that it took him time to get an erection! Makes us viewers wonder why she is so leg-conscious if every guy wants to hump her. Well, almost every guy; the only guy who really shunned her after seeing her leg wrapped up in metal is the guy working on the telephone. But otherwise she seems to be doing just fine with men! No shyness, no lack of success with men, and she throws them away like toys; the way she dumped Carradine was ridiculous. Poor little invalid girl?? I don't think so. And yet we are meant to believe that this woman has a major confidence problem; hence the scene in which she prepares to start playing the flute for a solo concert and somehow manages to throw the notes on the ground out of nervousness. Nervousness?? The rest of the movie shows little or nothing that would suggest that she has confidence problems, so this flute scene is absurd and doesn't fit into the bigger picture. I was also surprised how quickly and eagerly McNicol makes friends with a French woman who is screwing a married guy. On the surface the movie would appear to be a "sentimental story of one crippled woman's struggle for acceptance" (or something like that) but it's nothing like that at all; the writer clearly shifts between this type of movie and a "screw anything that moves - it's the 80s" kind of movie - very confusing.<br /><br />As far as her leg: it's not like she has a big, fat purple balloon growing on her calf muscle. She "only" has a normal-looking metal prosthetic attached to the lower part of her leg, so I really don't understand why the makers of the film try to make it seem as if she is a female Quasimodo or something, at the beginning of the film. It's not like she has a twin head growing out of her neck! Though McNicol is hardly a major catch. Kind of cutish but nothing special, quite average.<br /><br />But what the hell is Carradine doing playing some kind of a (relatively) smooth guy flirting with McNicol and her pal?! This guy was in "Revenge of the Nerds"! But I guess it's the same thing with the Carradines in the movies as it is with the Kennedys in politics: no matter how ugly, unable, or dumb, all the doors are open for a career in movies and politics, respectively.<br /><br />Down with nepotism.<br /><br />If you want to read bogus biographies about the Carradines, and other Hollywood nepotists and morons, contact me by e-mail. | 0neg
|
- I had planned to write something explaining what I didn't like about this movie, but this is going to be more difficult than I thought. Honestly, I can't remember much about it. I watched it just three days ago and it's made almost no impression on me. That's usually the sign of a real stinker. About the only thing I remember was being incredibly bored by most of it. The novelty of having a Humphrey Bogart look-a-like as the detective wore off real quick. It would be different if he could act, but he's a one-note entertainer. The kill scenes were amateurishly handled and there was no suspense leading up to them. If you can't spot the killer five minutes into the movie, you need to see more Euro horror. The casting is a dead giveaway to the killer's identity. | 0neg
|
This movie is a cringe-fest of bad acting and poor set design as well as tacky lines and a lame plot. But it is so much fun to watch. Everything about it is hilarious.The basic plot is a group of scientists from the future travel back in time to capture their evil co-worker who is intent on destroying them all. They catch up with him in the year 1146. The 'futuristic' lab of the scientists from the year 2033 is an eighties-style room with a bunch of 'futuristic' flashing buttons and a time capsule that looks like a lawn shed. The actors deliver their lines with unenthusiastic aplomb, which isn't hard to understand considering that the lines are usually earth-shakers like " I double-checked everything twice!" He double checked everything twice? He checked it four times? Not only that, but they feed you the entire premise of the movie in the first five minutes, and continue at a rapid fire pace until they hit the medieval part. When Roger Corman ran out of money. And had to stop travelling through time and consequently different sets. The medieval set is a comic mish-mash of anything from the late 10th century to the 16th century. Any costume they could find, they used. I guess chain mail wasn't on the budget, 'cause the guys all wear sequined shirts masquerading as armor. The fight scenes are laughable, with men casually throwing themselves onto cardboard swords with abandon and dying in death throws with nary a blow cast.It sounds truly awful, but I enjoy it every time I watch it. The lines alone are enough to have you in fits and everything else pulls together to create a fabulous B-movie that, if you are a connoisseur of corny flicks, I would suggest you see. And once you have, read the review on Unknown Movies. I love hearing them point out all the funny, truly awful bits in the movie. | 0neg
|
Spoilers of both this and The Matrix follow.<br /><br />I liked the original Matrix a great deal. It was not a deep movie, despite Fishburne's attempts to philosophize, but it was fairly well paced, fun, and I have a soft spot for Hong Kong fights.<br /><br />In the original, Neo was the secret life of the rather unhappy cube worker Anderson. By day, corporate drone, and by night, brave hacker. Eventually, he eventually is forced to choose between these lives by his actions - does he become an outlaw fighting the machine, or does he go back to the safe, forgettable world he started in. Interestingly, he discovers that once one is shorn of illusions, life rather sucks. He has his girl by his side and his boon companions, but he eats processed swill, dresses in sweats, and lives in a truly skungy bit of machinery. Still, the truth makes him free.<br /><br />At least part of the fun of that first movie lay in the "what if it were me" questions raised in the viewer's mind. What if _I_ were capable of the impossible? What if I were "The One". It does not even matter that much what you are The One example of, with a cool title like that.<br /><br />Further, agent Smith made a wonderful bad guy, as he embodied all of the fear of authority that we carry with us. He was as unstoppable as a terminator, and as merciless.<br /><br />At the end of the Matrix, Neo must return to the Matrix to share his good news of freedom.<br /><br />This movie fails to completely to carry through on the ideas of the original movie, and it does so with such lack of gusto, such poor scriptwriting and such poor editing that I cannot believe they had planned these changes. When the dialog is at a fifth grade level, with various long words dropped in randomly, I find it hard to believe that they understand what they are saying.<br /><br />My short list of characterization failures:<br /><br />The Oracle goes from mildly helpful, if deceitful to utterly obstructionist without any real reason.<br /><br />Major "personalities" of the matrix are introduced without need - the keymaster, for example, was a cute idea, but just not that interesting a character.<br /><br />Fishburne loses his "advisor" role, and gets nothing to replace it with.<br /><br />The people of Zion are not particularly likable, nor would you really _want_ them running the world.<br /><br />Special effects problems:<br /><br />The fight scenes are pointless and intermitable. In The Matrix, you felt Neo could lose, and that he had to become something greater in order to survive. In The Matrix Reloaded, he is merely the viewpoint character of a particularly poorly plotted video game.<br /><br />The fight on the freeway looked quite fake, and not that interesting.<br /><br />Pacing problems.<br /><br />As I mentioned above, the fight scenes were interminable.<br /><br />The rave went on too long - everyone in my row at the theater was looking at their watch. Not because we mind good dancing and good orgies, but because we did not know about the people pictured, nor did we care.<br /><br />Whatever hack wrote the creator's soliloquy should be blacklisted from the business. It meandered, used words that the scriptwriter clearly did not understand, and was a waste of time and a pacing killer. The creator's speech could have been done in a tenth the time, and with more peril as "Zion exists to give rebels a place to go so they do not destroy the Matrix. There are now too many people who do not believe; the matrix is in danger of crashing and killing every person hooked up to it. Further, the earth cannot support even the people in Zion, let alone these others. You may choose one person from Zion to form the new Zion, while I wipe the memories of the people currently in the Matrix."<br /><br />Instead, we got a long, drawn out bunch of twaddle. If someone argues that it is deep, ask for a transcript, and try breaking down the sentences. Each one is too long by several clauses, and uses words with clearer, shorter synonyms.<br /><br />So, in summary, not worth seeing.<br /><br />I have seen the third one, and despite what a number of reviewers have said, skip it. It does not save this turkey.<br /><br />The reviewers who feel that the second and third movies were "deep" should go see some truly deep movies. Perhaps read a book or two on rhetoric and debate, and perhaps a bit of philosophy. This movie is just not hard to understand, but it is hard to stomach.<br /><br />Scott | 0neg
|
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Continued...<br /><br />From here on in the whole movie collapses in on itself. First we meet a rogue program with the indication we're gonna get ghosts and vampires and werewolves and the like. We get a guy with a retarded accent talking endless garbage, two 'ghosts' that serve no real purpose and have no character what-so-ever and a bunch of henchmen. Someone's told me they're vampires (straight out of Blade 2), but they're so undefined I didn't realise.<br /><br />The funny accented guy with a ridiculous name suffers the same problem as the Oracle, only for far longer and far far worse. He has a simple point about cause and effect, makes it, then continues to make it and make it until it becomes convoluted and stupid. His final line before walking off is comparable to Storm's "do you know what happens to a toad..." line in X-men in levels of utter bland baddness. The chocolate cake is such a lazy, pathetic cliche and Monica Bellucci as the wife does nothing other than exactly what we expect the moment we see her.<br /><br />And then we get another kung fu fight!!! WHY? Neo is, allegedly, The One. He can do anything. He has the ultimate power and what does he use it for. Kung bloody fu all the time. And while he can stop 1000 bullets, he still gets cut by a sword and still makes a meal of 5 undecipherable henchmen (vampires?). I wanted to see mind blowing powers. I wanted to see him do the wildest, craziest most insane s*** to people because he can do anything. I got the same as before without the 'wow'.<br /><br />The fabled car chase. That can't be bad. Well... no, it's not. It's just not what we've been tyold it was going to be. ALL the cool shots from this scene are in the trailer. Every one. So all possibly Wow has been taken from us so all we now get is a good chase sequence with, guess what, a kung fu fight!!! OK, it's not Neo, but you'd have thought he'd have explained to his closest friends about the reality of the Matrix. At least taught them something. It's not hard.<br /><br />"Hey, Morpheus, don't worry about what happens to you in the matrix. It's not real. As long as you understand that nothing's real then nothing can really harm you."<br /><br />There you go. Simple.<br /><br />OK, so the chase is not bad. It's never boring and it doesn't seem like 16 minutes. It's just so underwhelming. And still, it gets worse.<br /><br />The final climax to the movie is quite probably the worst imaginable. They have this whole elaborate plan that involves three crews. They then only show it sporadically between Morpheus's over long, super preachy, monologue. To make it worse, they never clearly define what this plan that needs 3 teams is. You know basically, but you don't know who's doing what, when, so when one crew goes down you just don't care and you don't know how this is going to affect what goes on.<br /><br />I'll sum it up though, it happens so Trinity can get back into the Matrix to setup the end. That's the only reason it happens. Which raises the question, why did they need to send 6 people originally? Trinity gets in in five minutes by herself!<br /><br />Neo's journey to the centre of the Matrix (so to speak) is handled equally lazily. Ooohhh!!! He runs into another 100 Agent Smiths!!! Woooooo!!! That must've taken a lot of thought. Only now they're in a corridor so the fight has no scale and is over in a moment. Man, what a grand finale!!!<br /><br />And then the Architect!!!<br /><br />Remember everything I said was bad about the Oracle and the foreign guy? Add them together and double it, that's how truly appalling the Architect is. The only reasonable potential of him is he's about to set up the cliffhanging climax.<br /><br />And then he blows it!<br /><br />Let's look at the options he gives Neo. Choose one door and all humanity dies (except 27!!!). Choose the other and all humanity dies!!! Considering choice is something this film tries to explore it doesn't really give it's hero one. If he had a choice of Save humanity and the missus dies or Save the missus and kill humanity there's the potnetial for inner torment and tension. Also, with Trinity being mid fall, the potential of a real cliffhanger that would've made seeing the third more essential. But no. He has save no-one or save the missus.<br /><br />Now, the very worst thing about the original Matrix was Neo dying and then coming back to life right at the end. The year it came out everyone was so annoyed by how stupid Jar Jar was they didn't notice that the very end of The Matrix made him look him Steven Hawking. "The Oracle told me I'd fall in love with the One, and I love you".... Come On!!!! How can the whole world have missed how utterly terrible that was?<br /><br />So, what do the Wachowski's do in the sequel? Well, they make the ending of the original look better. How? Well, by doing almost exactly the same thing again (only swapping characters) only so much worse I think my f a and r keys would be worn out if I kept writing far before I got to worse.<br /><br />And the cliffhanger is just not really a cliffhanger. It's a reminder.<br /><br />Basically, this film is just bad. I really didn't want it to be bad, but it is. Bad in just so many ways. And to make matters worse, this isn't a film with not enough budget. It's not a film with too short a schedule. It's not a film that's been rushed out. It's not a film where too much influence has come from the outside. This is exactly the film the Wachowski's set out to make with Warner's fortune fully behind them. And that's what makes this so awful. At least Rancid Aluminium can say that it didn't haev enough time or money.<br /><br />Matrix Reloaded. The worst film ever made? Maybe not quite. The most disappointing and defalting film ever made.<br /><br />Undeniably.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
I tried to remove anything that might be considered a spoiler. I also assume that you've seen the first movie or at least know the general gist, so if you haven't some of this might not make sense.<br /><br />Plot: This movie beats the audience over the head with tired philosophical ramblings again and again in an attempt to get the theme across. We are bombarded again and again by questions of purpose, and destiny, and choice, and forced to endure the long, torturous platitude sessions that contain them.<br /><br />Neo, awakened from a dream in the last movie, now begins a period of realization about his own existence. There are a lot of revelations in this movie, which I'll be vague about so they won't seem like spoilers.<br /><br />*If you're still worried vague references will spoil the movie, don't read the paragraph below.*<br /><br />The strength and weakness of faith is revealed. The strengths and weaknesses of love, and its temporary nature, are also revealed. The interdependence of humans and technology, and our faith in technology, are also revealed. The importance of choice and experience is revealed. Explaining further things that are revealed would go into too much detail, so I will refrain (as the guidelines for writing a commentary asks). Btw, by "revealed" I mean pounded through our ears and eyes like nails.<br /><br />Storyline: So how does Neo and the gang get from the end of the last movie to the beginning of the next one? In short, they keep the faith, and use and abuse overly-stylized action and bullet-time like it's going out of style (and after this display, I'm hoping movie-goers and makers alike learn to appreciate subtlety and originality a bit more). More on that later. To not spoil anything, I will say no more than the promo material already did: Neo is still trying to figure out the Matrix, and he is looking for answers while trying to save the humans, and Zion, all while baddies are going after him and his cohorts. The movie pretty much picks up where the last one left off.<br /><br />Action: While martial arts action and gunplay peppered its predecessor in somewhat equal parts, this movie focuses much more on martial arts than gunplay, adding swords, sais, etc. to the mix. Special effects are so often used and waved in the audience's face that it becomes really tiresome. I've discussed this movie with friends and coworkers alike, and nearly all of them found some of the action sequences--especially the "Smith fight" we all heard would be in the movie--to be too long and tedious. This is a huge red flag for action fans, because the end of an action sequence should either leave you wanting a slight bit more, or completely content with the awesomeness that just occured.<br /><br />These fights scenes do neither. They are over-stylized, over-the-top sequences that are wooden and uninspired. In the first movie, there was a real sense of desperation to some of the action, a sense that fighting was for survival, not just looking good (which I honestly don't think they manage in Reloaded anyway) in black and leather. Go watch Drunken Master or Iron Monkey after this movie to remind yourself of what good fighting sequences are--you won't regret it. In addition, the "Matrix abilities" people have in Reloaded is not consistent, and what they actually do is not consistent. The first movie had its inconsistencies here, but they weren't too glaring--unlike Reloaded.<br /><br />Special effects are poured on and on and on. Every little thing someone does, be it just jump, somersault, spin, and in many cases just pose, are<br /><br />slow-moed, bullet-timed, or over-accentuated by some sort of destruction. It's evident the W Bros had a ton of money to throw at this movie, and boy did they throw it, with no real restraint. Sharp editors could have really helped this, but the first movie was such a hit that free reign was obviously given, which brings us to. . .<br /><br />Character and dialogue: I have already more or less said the dialogue was tired and full of philosophical platitudes. Actors can't really bring a lot of depth to their character when the script and direction is shoving character progression audience's face, or neglecting it altogether. The audience is at no time given nuance and substance so they can contemplate the character on their own.<br /><br />Keanu's acting performance is stiff at best. Keanu is good at acting confused, and that's about all he does in this film. He makes a decent attempt to show passion between Neo and Trinity, but it falls flat.<br /><br />Lawrence tries to make Morpheus everything from Moses to Henry V, and be as cool as a cat throughout. With the script he is provided, he makes a noble attempt, but it also falls flat.<br /><br />Moss isn't very believable either. Her look of concern is always the same, much like Keanu's, and the chemistry isn't there, although in their very physical scenes they fake it well enough.<br /><br />Hugo once again brought his weird sense of being an Agent program, but he too suffered from the script's hand. I actually find him to be the most interesting character of the bunch, but instead of development they just make him an excuse for a huge, drawn out fight scene.<br /><br />All in all, this movie is beyond disappointing if you had good expectations, and on its own, as a stand-alone movie (which is not how it's supposed to be taken), it's still horrible. I don't see The Matrix as deep, but I at least see it as an enjoyable scifi romp that has some interesting ideas, good action, a few funny lines, and enough restrained symbolism and elusions to amuse the attentive. Reloaded fails on all these counts, and I really hope the W Bros will give us a better experience in the 3rd installment. Granted, I don't have a lot of hope left for that after this film. | 0neg
|
The first Matrix movie was lush with incredible character development, witty dialog, and action scenes that kept with the flow of the story. These elements -- coupled by incredible special effects of the day -- presented a magical ride that kept you in suspense the entire time. Enter Matrix Reloaded (and its sequel, Revolutions). The problem here isn't the special effects or the fight sequences as some may argue; The brothers have taken well-developed characters from the first film and hollowed them out like rotten tree logs.
The connection that was first established between viewers and on-screen characters in the first film is lost when you realize these are not the same characters from the first Matrix movie.<br /><br />To wit, Morpheus was developed as a charismatic, philosophical character with insight far exceeding anyone else in the movie, but here in Reloaded -- we're presented by a different Morpheus who stands hard and hollow, reduced to corny one-liners that contradict the character we saw develop in the first film. This character just didn't feel the same, and this could also be said about the supporting characters in the movie.<br /><br />The removal of 'Tank' was also a disappointment. Tank's involvement in the first film was minimal at best, but he played the role extremely well. In Reloaded, we discover that Tank dies after the events in the first film, and he is replaced by a Jar Jar Binks stunt double that couldn't act to save his live (think stale box of Kellogg's Corn Flakes). His performance left me chuckling throughout, and most of his spoken dialog lacked timing. There was an overwhelming sense that he was either trying too hard to convey his emotions on-screen or the delivery in the script was off; in either case, the experience was humorous! At times I felt embarrassed for the actor....<br /><br />Even Neo's Godly persona was suspect during most of the fighting sequences. The alleyway battle with the 200 Agent Smith clones was certainly exaggerated. One must wonder, for a man so gifted as Neo -- that he would even waste his time engaging in such a fruitless, frivolous battle when more pressing matters attend (especially when you consider his ability to fly or his ungodly ability to bend the Matrix; certainly Neo could have dispatched the clones much quicker, and more efficiently). Again, such acts lend themselves to a script hindered by consistency, and scenes created as filler to keep us from feeling gypped. In jest, our expectations of the characters created in the first film are discarded promptly. Sadly, for those expecting more of the same -- you will certainly walk away feeling gravely disappointed.<br /><br />However, if you take Reloaded as your standard, run-of-the-mill action movie, and forget the incredible story inconsistencies and the untwining of already-established character development from the first film, you should walk away feeling quite pleased. | 0neg
|
1/10 and that's only because I don't go lower with my ratings.<br /><br />skip this "movie" and wait for the last movie of the "Trilogy", don't buy or rent it. trust me you won't be missing a thing. the Architect brings no new info: _(spoiler)_ there have been more NEO's before him, he's like nr.6 or something. you could already figure something like that out from the first movie: Agent Smith telling us the first Matrix created didn't work because it was too perfect. Trinity died and Neo's "love" brought her back, where have I seen this before ? Oh right in the first movie the roles where reversed ! same as the action-scenes nothing new just with more opponents. the Action-scene (the 20+ ships) in the BIG battle which we didn't see (maybe in Revolutions ?), betrayed by someone (hmmmm, maybe the guy holding the knife who wanted to stab Neo?!) who pushed the EGM-button to soon.<br /><br />all in all a shameless ploy to make money (especially off the guys who went to see it more then once), which evidently worked like a charm. | 0neg
|
Man would expect that a movie shot with an approx. budget of 300,000,000 U$D should at least entertain you for the time you are spending in the cinema actally watching it. "Matrix Reloaded" proves this assumption wrong.<br /><br />"The Matrix" worked out better, despite having apparent holes concerning logic of the story. At least nobody could explain to me why beating up a bot (aka agent) inside a simulation (aka martix) would harm the responsible computer program in any way...<br /><br />Unfortunately, the Wachowski brothers made excactly this "agent-bashing" the main thing in "Matrix Reloaded": it's a beat 'em up o-rama. This fighting scenes may be work out sufficient (or even cool) in a 5 sec. trailer, but prolonged for several minutes, apparently being faked, choreographed poorly and repeated over and over again it is nothing more than boring. Despite seeing the promised spectecular stunts there is nothing more than simple low-quality, unimaginative bashing already seen (or better not) in eg. Van Damme 'movies'. The difference of post-production (etherything is 5 times faster, the camera floats around a lot and freezes on certain scenes, and this is repeated for at least 5min) doesn't help here, all this has nothing to do with the very meaning of "martial arts". Beside these 'fights', all actors do refuse to do what they are payed for: acting.<br /><br />What's up besides the fighting scenes? Few except Hollywood routine. This oh-so-multicultural bunch of hippies which sucked in "Waterworld" are recycled as citizen of "Zion" (mans last city on earth), and on the order of Morpheus they start dancing, 'cause this is a good opportunity to show a lot of barely covered tits and butts. The oh-so-popular clichée of the frog aka frenchmen talking with this "je ne sais quoi" dumb accent, who wastes his fortune because of a "liason d'amour" is bravely served. Following this (and unwanted funny) is the fight between Neo and the sinister followers of 'the frog', since it takes place in an Erroy Flynn like enterieur, luckily featuring a lot of mideaval weapons for decoration. For Neo posing with the hellebarde, just add 2 stairs and a lot of statues (for being destructed, thrown over evil guys and the like) and you get 5 more senseless, boring min. of this junk.<br /><br />Whats left to expect? The usual merchandising hell. And "revolutions" which will happen or not - certainly without me. | 0neg
|
`The Matrix' was an exciting summer blockbuster that was visually fantastic but also curiously thought provoking in its `Twilight Zone'-ish manner. The general rule applies here- and this sequel doesn't match up to its predecessor. Worse than that, it doesn't even compare with it.<br /><br />`Reloaded' explodes onto the screen in the most un-professional fashion. In the opening few seconds the first impression is a generally good one as Trinity is shot in a dream. Immediately after that, the film nose-dives. After a disastrous first 45 minutes, it gradually gains momentum when they enter the Matrix and the Agent Smith battle takes place. But it loses itself all speed when it reaches the 14-minute car chase sequence and gets even worse at the big groan-worthy twist at the end. Worst of all is the overlong `Zion Rave' scene. Not only does it have absolutely nothing to do with the plot, but it's also a pathetic excuse for porn and depressive dance music.<br /><br />The bullet-time aspect of `The Matrix' was a good addition, but in `'Reloaded' they overuse to make it seem boring. In the first one there were interesting plot turns, but here it is too linear to be remotely interesting. The movie is basically, just a series of stylish diversions that prevent us from realising just how empty it really is. It works on the incorrect principle that bigger is better. It appears that `The Matrix' franchise has quickly descended into the special effects drenched misfire that other franchises such as the `Star Wars' saga have.<br /><br />The acting standard is poor for the most part. The best character of course goes to Hugo Weaving's `Agent Smith'- the only one to be slightly interesting. Keanu Reeves is the definitive Neo, but in all the special effects, there is little room to make much of an impact. Academy Award Nominee Laurence Fishburne is reduced to a monotonous mentor with poor dialogue. Carrie Ann Moss' part as the action chick could have been done much better by any other actress. <br /><br />A poor, thrown-together movie, `The Matrix Reloaded' is a disappointment. Those who didn't like the first one are unlikely to flock to it. This one's for die-hard fans only. Even in the movie's own sub-genre of special effect bonanzas (Minority Report, The Matrix etc.) this is still rather poor. My IMDb rating: 4.5/10. | 0neg
|
I felt asleep, watching it!!! (and I had tickets for the midnight- premiere) Any questions? The most disturbing scene, as far as I can remember, was the techno-dance-i-dont-know-what-that-was-scene. By the way what an ending!? | 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.