text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
As a fan of Science-fiction movies, I have been aware of The Matrix since its release in 1999. From the little bit I would allow people to tell me about it, I assumed it was highly original and sophisticated. I am also a devotee of Alice in Wonderland. I could never quite figure out how I missed The Matrix when it was released. With the imminent release of The Matrix Reloaded, it was time to buy the DVD and watch it.<br /><br />The disappointment was too great. The premise of the matrix (the controlling device as opposed to the movie) was clever. The philosophical premise of parallel worlds, alternate realities is shopworn. However, I could still have bought into the film, as science-fiction, if it stayed firmly in that genre. Unfortunately, it turned into a standard, "will they or won't they escape, break through, rescue those in need of rescue, etc." To make matters worse, it turned out to be another martial arts exercise. The problem is that science-fiction and martial arts films are really two different types. To the purest, the devotee of one or the other, mixing the two doesn't work. It is like mixing science-fiction with romance. You can have one or the other, but not both in the same film, or, at least, not both to the same extent in the same movie.<br /><br />If there were such problems with The Matrix, The Matrix Reloaded really compounded the problems. At least thirty minutes of the film were either martial arts sequences or the protracted car-chase. (This observation ignores the question, made in every professional, negative review of the movie: If Neo could do the Superman thing, why bother to fight at all? The answer, of course, is that's what draws the young, male demographic group into the theatre.) Then there is the "redemption through love" aspect. That plot device was worn out by Richard Wagner over a hundred years ago. It was actually handled better by him in Die Gotterdammerung.<br /><br />So where does that leave those who saw the Matrix Reloaded. Martial arts fans probably groaned through the trite, but arcane sci-fi philosophizing. Science fictions fans were wondering why they were sitting through a kung-fun fest. Most of the males in the audience where probably bored by the silly romance aspect of the film.<br /><br />Just what are you supposed to be getting for your bucks when you see The Matrix franchise films: Science fiction, martial arts, or soap opera? A bit of each does not make for a whole lot more of any of them, nor for a satisfying film for the afficionados of each. | 0neg
|
What the hell was all that about? I saw The Matrix and was amazed. It was the most spectacular movie ever made. What ever possesed the Wachowski brothers to do this film is beyond me.<br /><br />There is no plot, you can't argue with that. Basically all this film was was a load of talking, and don't get me wrong, I have no problem with talky films, but all the talking in The Matrix Reloaded was a pointless load of drivvle. Then there would be a fight sequence which lasted WAY too long, then more pointless drivvle, then another fight scene that lasts too long and it all builds up to the biggest anti-climax ever. A little bearded bloke talking a load of uncomprehensible bull for 20 minutes.<br /><br />Also, Keanu Reeves gives his worst performance yet. I knew he wasn't a good actor but this was beyond a joke. If you watch his films in the order he was in them it would seem he got gradually worse as they went along. God knows what his performance is like in Something's Gotta Give! Keanu Reeves: The only plank of wood ever to become an actor.<br /><br />After the splendor of the first film this came as a massive dissapointment. If you haven't already seen the first film I suggest you watch it, but don't waste your time with this utter pile of turd.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
It seems as if in Science Fiction you have this periodic throwback to perform an odd phenomenon that appears in long serial novels. It's where the first novel (Dune, Ender's Game) blows you away with an actionpacked revolutionary story. The sequels however take that universe and lead you down the garden path to whatever new little social or political commentary the author wants to make. The Matrix is finally the film equivalent. The Matrix stands tall, alone, as an interesting film with an odd twist in the middle. Seeing this cash cow just sitting there, and wanting to explore other aspects of society, the writers and directors then lead you through what has to be some of the most painful monologues and non-action sequences in SciFi. While the visuals remain as stunning from the first movies, the new explorations of the characters falls terrible flat in the sequel. Watch for eye candy, not for deep thought.<br /><br />4 out of 10, as registered by this fine website. | 0neg
|
As soon as I began to see posters and hear talk about this movie, I was immediately excited. The Matrix was an incredible to behold and I couldn't wait to see the second one, especially after beginning to see the trailers for it at other movies. However, when I saw it, I left the theater extremely disappointed, as did many other movie-goers at the theater with me. While the action scenes in the movie were amazing as always, there simply were too few of them. In the first movie, there was constant fighting going on it seemed, but the second took a much more (and much unfortunate) preachy point of view. To sum up the plot, there wasn't much to it that wasn't expected. The machines were digging toward Zion with intent of destroying it (that's not a spoiler, everyone saw it in the commercials). The dialogue of the movie was absolutely horrendous. Unless you're a psychology major, you most likely will not understand most of what is said in the movie, and because of that simply won't care. It became somewhat of a romantic movie with the showing of events happening in the lives and relationship of Neo and Trinity. Agent Smith, for as bad-ass as he was in the first movie, seemed to get all religious and preachy. Personally, I don't need to hear about that or pay money to listen to it. The movie was a serious waste of my time, and I don't think I can watch the first one anymore. The dialogue and the constant boring and dry monologues from basically every character made me lose interest in the film quickly, and the small amount of good fighting scenes pushed me nearer the edge, and the ending of the movie shoved me right off. What movie ends with "To Be Concluded"? How original is that folks. I wonder if the Wachowski brothers had to burn the midnight oil to come up with that one. In conclusion, the movie was bad and that's the end of it. | 0neg
|
I'll admit that I liked the first one, and was really looking forward to the sequel.<br /><br />I was let down. Sure the special effects were technically amazing -- but they weren't believable looking. It looked more like a cartoon. Alright, I admit to liking 80% of the chase scene -- but the fight with all the Mr Smiths? It was too obviously animated.<br /><br />I can accept all of that. What I can't accept is that the non-action parts were crap. Every time Morpheus opened his mouth, I knew I was in for a speech that went on forever and signified nothing.<br /><br />I was also disappointed with the little plot that did exist. What this movie did was tell us that there was no truth in the first movie (except about the existence of the matrix). This movie was a little like seeing the episode of DALLAS where you find out that the entire previous season was a dream.<br /><br />Ugh! I want my $7.00 back! | 0neg
|
A perfect little atrocity...I doubt if a single shot lasted for more then the reglamentary-MTV 4.4 seconds. Woeful casting, worse even than in Kusminsky's version (a reminder: he managed to miscast Juliet Binoche and Ralph Feinnnes). But, hey-the rich got what they deserved. Dark and brooding Heathcliff reduced to the state of a golden-locked angel, frail and angellic Catherine presented as a chubby, melon-breasted heffer, meek and weak Linton is a peeping tom, and innocent Isabel becomes Sara Michelle-Gellar's character from Cruel Intentions. 15-year old Eddie Bauer and Abercrombie and Fitch donners-take notice. This thing was made for you. It is an hour-and-a-half long music video where everything is given to you; you are saved from the uncomfortable necessity of not even trying to understand the complexity of the characters, but even from initial shock at their actions. The actors tried, but, as I stated before, they were miscasted. Decent photography, but editing is on the level of TV production class in high school. I implore you all: read the book, or the cliffnotes even; watch the previous versions of it, even Kusminsky's; but stay away from the numerous future reruns, during which you will not receive the benefit of the commercial-free premiere. | 0neg
|
I was skeptical when I first saw the Calvin Kline-esque commercials, but thought I'd give it a chance. So I've watched it, and all I can say is bleh. This movie was so bad. It's rare that I hate a movie this much. Watching this flick reminded me of those funny scenes in Altman's "The Player," when the writers pitch their bizarre ideas to producers. I'd like to know which MTV producer decided that an hour and a half long music video adaptation of Bronte (but this time Heathcliff's name is Heath and he's a rock star, and Hindley's name is Hendrix) would be a good idea.<br /><br />Even that might not have been so bad, had they not gotten every other aspect of the film so horrible wrong as well. The direction must have been "you're lonely, pout for me." I laughed out loud during all the "serious" scenes and was bored throughout the rest. The camera work was jagged and repeatedly reminded me that I was watching a bad movie trying to be edgy. My theory is that the sound guy got bored and went down to the beach for a few beers with his boom -- all I could hear in half the scenes were the waves. And in the other scenes, I wish that's all I could hear. And speaking of sound, what they did to the Sisters of Mercy song "More" is absolutely inexcusable, then again, it's inexcusable what they did to Bronte.<br /><br />On the bright side, there was one entertaining scene -- specifically the moment when Johnny Whitworth licked Katherine Heigl's face -- and if you can tell me what that scene had to do with all the rest of the story more power to you. | 0neg
|
Let me start off by saying that I didn't watch this movie at first with high expectations. It was recommended to me by a friend with mediocre taste in movies, and "MTV" was pasted on the front cover so I was not expecting much. What i was expecting was a tear-jerker, overly dramatic but at least effective.<br /><br />I was wrong.<br /><br />Firstly, let me start off that I had never read the book nor watched any other versions of the movie.<br /><br />The acting was my main gripe with the film. By god is it AWFUL. The main girl is pretty mediocre, but when compared to the rest of the cast she's Maryl Streep. The main "Hero", Heath, is just plain awful. He can sing decent sounding clichéd songs, but that's about it. His acting broke the 'sad' moments by being so bad at points that I just burst into laughter. The Isabel girl was pretty godawful too, and the brother was just a flat character that was played by an actor that couldn't display emotion whatsoever. And when he tried to, it failed miserably. Neil Patrick Harris was the only decent actor, playing Edward, although it's obvious the direction was bad because even he did not live up to what I've seen him do. Oh, and the father wasn't half-bad to my memory, but he was in the movie for such a small amount of time I can hardly remember.<br /><br />The story itself was not very good. More breakups than you can imagine. Predictable story (Until the ending, which I barely understood). EXTREMELY one-sided characters with no real depth to them... Overall just not interesting or compelling, nothing we've never seen before done MUCH better, and nothing worth watching here.<br /><br />The ending is suppose to be a tearjerker. It did nothing of the sort. The ending isn't built up at all, it almost feels like an afterthought. In fact, I had to ask my friends WHY the ending actually happened, which when they explained it to me I must have had a look on my face of "Wait, when did they say that? What?". Never a good sign. The editing was probably the worst I've seen, though I do understand the fade-ins-fade-outs are done because this was originally made for TV, but that's really no excuse.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is just garbage. I'm a sensitive guy, I cried during two episodes of the Simpsons. I never cried during this crap, not even close. Really, this movie is not worth your time. If you really want to see a tearjerker look elsewhere. | 0neg
|
There's no denying the first Azumi film was a commercial product; it was an adaptation of a popular manga and had cast of young, attractive actors and certainly wasn't lacking in the budget department. Yet it more than entertained for what it was, and I can't deny I enjoyed it immensely.<br /><br />"Azumi 2" lacks just about everything that made the original so wonderful. The first thing that should set alarm bells ringing is the absence of the superb Ryuhei Kitamura at the helm. With him, he seemed to take not only his own visual flair and kinetics, but the originals style, beauty and most importantly, its heart. While the first had a simple "hitlist" plot, this one has a corkscrew mess of a story, with too many dull characters stabbing each other in the back so many times the potential for any sympathy or pathos is obliterated. Gone is the effective interplay between the lead characters; Azumi and her cohorts are often reduced to a bunch of stroppy teenagers arguing in a forest. Characterisation is non existent; if anyone watching actually cares who lives and who dies, I'll be shocked. The same applies to the villains here. The final battle - in fact all the battles - are completely devoid of any sort of tension. The fact that they are poorly choreographed and abysmally directed - not to mention few and far between - is made a sideline by their own sheer pointlessness. The villains themselves try far too hard to be campy, and even if they were all combined, they don't come within a country mile of the Pete Burnsian antics of Jo Odagiri in the original.<br /><br />####Major Spoiler at end of paragraph!##### <br /><br />Aya Ueto tries her best it has to be said, and she also managed to keep her hair in good condition between the films. Azumi is now a fully fledged assassin, meaning she can wave her sword around in slow motion; unfortunately, now the character is instilled with a sort of Man With No Name style mysteriousness, Ueto's model looks become even more inappropriate. I know this is supposed to be the point, but this combined with the ineffectiveness of everyone else in the film, the stupidity of the plot and the general ineptness of the film in general means it is downright impossible to get behind her character this time around. The less said about Chiaki "Remember me from Kill Bill" Kuriyama's performance the better; it suffices to say her "turn" from good to evil is about as subtle as napalm.<br /><br />Overall, this was just a colossal disappointment. Any merits is does have were done ten times better in the first film. A lazy, unsatisfying - and generally downright boring - mess. | 0neg
|
You like beautiful girls? Yeah me too. What is there bad to say about beautiful girls/women? Nothing imo, so why would I give this movie only 2 stars out of 5, although it got the "talents" of Chiaki Kuriyama and Aya Ueto? <br /><br />If I really wanted to watch beautiful people, I'd watch MTV or something that's why. This is a movie, a so called action movie nevertheless. So by definition it does not even really need a plot right? I'm not agreeing 100%, but let's say yes to that. So what does it need? 20 minutes footage from part 1 (I might be exaggerating a little bit, but it felt like more than 20 minutes ...)?! That would be "No". But then again you never know, the people who watched part one might not know what they ate this morning for breakfast, so hey let's remind them ... hey maybe remind them even twice? Just to be sure they won't forget ... at least until the credits roll, of course!!!! <br /><br />So forget about the story, about character development, about real emotions, about the "acting" (and no, I don't think women in skirts walking and/or fighting is accountable for acting!) ... what does that leave? Yes the action scenes. The action scenes are not bad and that's the reason I gave the movie 2 stars instead of 1! I was giving this movie a chance, but it was a waste of time ... You have better things to do/watch, believe me ... | 0neg
|
I can't believe I actually sat through the whole thing. This movie has the worst acting since Killjoy.<br /><br />Here is a brief outline of the plot: The movie starts out with Jojo and that other chick sitting around on the beach, drooling over a skinny blonde-haired beach "hunk" who looks like he hasn't been to the gym a day in his life. Somehow, everyone knows him, and every single chick in the movie wants him. UH OH! Here comes the competition! The stereotypical "hot chick" and her best friends, who drive an ugly pink car. We soon find out Jojo's mom got the job of a lifetime in Australia, which means that Jojo would have to move and leave her best friend behind (oh no, I think I'm gonna cry). A huge storm comes, and fills their swimming pool with nasty water. Somehow, for no apparent reason, the little chick falls into the pool, and comes face to face with, yup, you guessed it, a MERMAID! This is where the "story" really takes off. Basically, they want to get the mermaid to fall in love with the "hunk".<br /><br />This is a preteen flick with acting so bad, it makes the 80's look like the pinnacle of Oscar-worthy performances. This movie has all the clichés possible... the best friends, the "hunk" who everyone wants, the "hot" bad girl and her bitchy friends, the scary old man... you name it, it's in there. I took one for a lot of people by watching this. Consider my hour and 40 minutes a sacrifice to you. Please, don't see this movie. Don't make it so I suffered in vain. | 0neg
|
If I write a review about a movie, maybe it will stick with me... but generally I expect that I will have forgotten I've seen this one a mere two weeks from now. So why bother? Because again I find myself watching a low-rated movie that was fun to watch. I didn't expect I'd to be able to stay in the room while it was on.<br /><br />It wasn't great, but at least it was not unbearable... not a comedy of errors which always makes me cringe. It was just sweet fluff... and if you can't take it, stay in the locker room boys. I agree with those who defend this movie because it is sure to please its targeted demographic, and won't be a total bore to an adult.<br /><br />It offers a few good chuckles here and there, but nary a side splitter. Sure it is silly and only mildly entertaining, but at least it doesn't suck (as so many have said it does). Maybe those folks are afraid of their sensitive sides? <br /><br />I have a tendency to grade on the bell curve, so a 4,5 or 6 is actually an okay all-around rating in my book. Giving it a 4 makes sense and will bolster its rating at the time of this writing. Giving it a 1 or a 10, as most have done thus far, makes the rating numbers meaningless. I cannot believe how strongly people feel one way or the other about this forgettable fluff (or that I am even bothering to write about it). Am I missing something? <br /><br />Anyway, it should be noted that Emma Roberts performs her role as Clairedycat quite convincingly. Ariell Kebbel often written into b*ch roles does not disappoint when her character gets her due. You might also recognize Bruce Spence playing Leonard, though his role is ancillary.<br /><br />Surely you can miss this one if you are an adult. But, if there is a pre-teen girl in your life, rent this movie for her... and be prepared NOT to hate it (you might even enjoy it). | 0neg
|
A half-hearted attempt to bring Elvis Presley into the modern day, but despite a sexy little shower scene and a pseudo-Playboy magazine subplot, Presley is surrounded by the same old coy, winking clichés. A woman picks E.P. up on the beach and then proceeds to take over his life--and he doesn't seem to care! Dick Sargent is grueling in another sidebar, but Don Porter and Rudy Vallee (!) try hard as Elvis' two bosses (he's moonlighting, you see). Some of the songs are quite good, especially "Almost in Love", but if you want to see a looser, hipper, updated Elvis sex-comedy--look elsewhere. When Elvis and his Fatal Attraction get into bed together, there's actually a wooden board in between them! Get real. ** from **** | 0neg
|
When I was seventeen I genuinely believed Elvis to be the king of rock and roll, and not only did I wish to see all 31 of his "character" movies, but it was my ambition to own them, too. What an exceptionally poor excuse for a seventeen-year-old I must have been. Thankfully sense prevailed and Live A Little, Love A Little is the only Elvis film I own.<br /><br />The spotlight has fallen on this one recently since a remixed version of top song A Little Less Conversation has been released as a single. (His first to reach the UK top ten in 22 years his first UK No.1 in 25) Even when I was seventeen and in serious need of psychiatric help I realised that the songs for this movie weren't exactly first rate. However, A Little Less Conversation - rollnecks and 60s grooving aside - is a real standout. Finding a lesser-known song that only a relatively small few are aware of promoted into the mainstream produces a mixture of emotions. It's nice to finally see faith in a song vindicated, but it's also saddening to see the disintegration of your own private cult. (And what chauvinistic lyrics, too. Though what other Elvis song contains the word "procrastinate"?)<br /><br />But what really bothers me about this film is not A Little Less Conversation but the 84 minutes that surround it. Actually based on a novel (Kiss My Firm But Pliant Lips - what kind of lame novel would that be?) this one sees a bored Elvis holed up with a "comedy" dog and a nympho. Within 90 seconds of meeting him, Michele Carey asks "would you like to make love to me?" Quite a fast mover by any standards I'm sure you'll agree.<br /><br />I do seem to recall that some of Elvis's early movies - most notably Jailhouse Rock and King Creole - weren't too bad, but this is just identikit hillbilly cobblers. Being fired from a newspaper job can lead to a five minute karate fight with a couple of gingernuts, causing a motorway pile up is good for a laugh, and models dress as pink mermaids. There's even a dream sequence for God's sake. Maybe the only dumb stereotype it doesn't conform to is in not having all that many songs. With just four to choose from, including the credits number, you're waiting an average of 22 minutes between tracks. Some movies would become vapid by having too many tunes, but here they might have helped to have numbed the pain. Of the remaining three tracks, then The Edge of Reality isn't actually that bad, though Elvis's dance to it must surely have been called "The Bear Trap".<br /><br />In one sense, for a PG certificate film from 1968 then this is shockingly high on sexual content. Sadly, however, with talking dogs, Middle America sitcom values and the stiffest dancing you'll ever see, Elvis's dignity is obliterated by this movie. | 0neg
|
LIVE A LITTLE, LOVE A LITTLE is one of Elvis' weirdest movies. Part slapstick, part fluff, part surreal and part strange. Elvis meets up with a very off-beat girl with an annoying voice. She looks like Jennifer Aniston. Story doesn't make much sense as is the case with most Elvis Presley movies, and there a bunch of odd characters galore. Not much music in this one, but what there is I liked, although none are memorable. Strange continuity. Elvis and Michelle Carey go into her beach house at night, but a few minutes later a delivery boy comes in and it's stark daylight!! What?? That's about the essence of the movie. What?? Oh, two good things about the movie: A) Elvis looks great and B) the dog steals the show. | 0neg
|
This is easily the worst Presley vehicle ever, which would bring us pretty close to the worst film ever made. It is measurably worse than even the revolting "Happy Ending" song at the end of "It Happened At The World's Fair", and here I thought that moment when Elvis buys all of the vendor's balloons for his girl, and then the balloon vendor gets jiggy to the marching band was the epitome of bad cinema and could not be topped. I usually enjoy the random Elvis flick if for no other reason but the memories of a time when we were innocent enough to sit through it. This one, however, ought to be called "Live a Little, Wish You Were Dead a Little", and makes "Stay Away Joe" look like Olivier playing Othello.<br /><br />Here, Elvis plays Greg, who is essentially a hippie free-lance photographer except for the Establishment haircut. After a fun morning of reckless driving, he ends up at the beach where he is abducted by a woman who's name changes depending on the scene and who is speaking to her. Clearly Michele Carey was selected for her resemblance to and ability to mimic Elizabeth Taylor (if I watched this without my glasses, I would have thought it was late 1960's Liz playing the female lead). She sics her dog on Elvis until he runs into the water and catches convenient movie pneumonia, then she keeps him doped up out of consciousness in her beach pad so long he loses his job and his apartment so she moves his stuff into her house before he awakens without even telling him (the audience does not know about it either, until Elvis tries to go back to work and his boss has him beaten up for no reason except he deserved it for making this movie, and tries to go home and finds some hateful woman in a slip living in his house).<br /><br />Rather than having her arrested for kidnapping, larceny and assault, he goes out and gets two jobs to repay the back rent Miss Crazy Pants had to spring for when stealing all of his belongings. Job one is working for Don Porter at a Playboy type magazine, job two is upstairs working for Rudy Vallee at a snobby fashion magazine. I think the two-job shuffling is supposed to be the comedy, too bad it isn't the least bit funny, unless you'd laugh the 100th time you saw someone run up and down stairs in fast-motion to silly music. The predominate obstacle that keeps Greg from falling for his abductor is her other love interest, the dreadfully miscast Dick Sargent (let's face it, either Porter or Vallee, even given their advanced ages in 1968, would have made far more believable competitors for Miss Crazy's affections).<br /><br />There are a variety of uninteresting and unfunny twists and turns, I kept waiting for something, anything to happen that would make all of this make sense. It never did. Entertainment totals approximately three minutes and is comprised of Elvis' rendition of "A Little Less Talk" (which I can listen to on CD without this painful movie inflicted upon me) and a funny five second bit where Elvis flops on the couch and Crazy Pants has apparently disassembled it so it flies all to pieces when he lands on it. That's it, folks, busted furniture, the only laugh in this entire film. No amount of mod sixties clothing, music, or décor can salvage this high-heaven stinker and it should be avoided at all costs. Viewing this can create an unnatural desire on the part of the audience toward the self-infliction of grave bodily harm. | 0neg
|
This film is really something of a curate's egg, good in parts. In contrast to other reviewers, I found that the main fault with it is its inability to draw in the viewer's interest in the characters and the plot. I sat through it because I'm interested in rock'n'roll and the dynamics of bands, but if I were to evaluate it purely on the basis of its merit as a movie, I would have to give it the thumbs down, with a few caveats: Jason Behr is good in the part of John Livien, and quite convincing as a rock singer; the narrative regarding his childhood trauma is unclear, although we are given hints in Livien's well-acted relationship to his parents, but his behaviour is ultimately bizarre to the viewer (which it shouldn't be). Nevertheless the idea of using a stage persona to solve inner conflicts is interesting, albeit not novel nor fully explored as a theme in this film. The allusions to John Lennon were irritating, but I confess I'm not a Beatles fan. At any rate, Livien and his band reminded me more of Oasis than the Beatles, in the sense that there was something derivative about them. Another frustrating thing about the movie was the way it opened up with some interesting - albeit middlebrow and high-school level - philosophical musings of the lead character, but left the threads of his thinking there, only to pick them up again in the middle of the film very briefly, when Livien says, "before God, there was music" (ever seen that ad for Tia Maria in the 1990s, "Before time, there was Tia Maria"? That's what sprung to mind anyway); it seems an idiotic conclusion, and the viewer has no idea how he reached it, but he's entitled to it. Fortunately his bassist and friend, played ably by Dominic Monaghan, seems to acknowledge the fallacy of this thinking when he responds "You don't know that".<br /><br />In all, the limited strengths of the direction and the plot could go either way on future projects, into pointless banality or into an interesting and more mature perspective. | 0neg
|
Yet another film about a tortured self-centered, arrogant, unfeeling hateful, self-destructive lead character we are supposed to care about.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong I am very open to all kinds of off the wall movies that have as the lead character a strongly self-destructive character. What I object to about this one is that there is so little background to this guy. Why did this guy hate himself and the world? Had the script dealt with this more they might have managed to elicit some sympathy for him. As it is he just comes off as an unpleasant hateful character, not tragic, just hateful.<br /><br />After taking great pains to make this guy as crazy and anti-social as possible and making his fate as dark as possible the writer then has the nerve to make a happy ending....<br /><br />This is not the worst film I have ever seen but it is in there putting up a good fight! Man! Don't waste your time. | 0neg
|
A great opportunity for and Indy director to make an interesting film about a rock musician on the brink of stardom. It could have been a decent film if it would have dealt with John Livien's traumatic past and how it is torturing his psyche. Instead, it is a ridiculous attempt to identify John Livien's life with John Lennon's. John Livien's suicida mother's hero was John Lennon and she wished for him to become as powerful and prolific as Lennon himself. Instead of focusing on John Lennon's musical brilliance, and his wonderful ability to bare himself for others to learn something about their own life, it showed Lennon's legacy to be that of a confused, drug addicted soul, who should looked upon as a God instead a man. I am a huge John Lennon fan and this movie reminded me of another "crazy" person obsessed with Lennon, Lennon's killer , Mark David Chapman. Lennon was a man who was brutally murdered by someone else who had an identity crisis with Lennon. Do we need to be reminded of that? John Lennon gave so much to the world with his music and honesty and I was repulsed to see another disturbed person, as the main character in this movie obsessed by Lennon, and not show his beautiful contributions to the world. Yoko Ono graciously honored John Lennon's memory,by making the memorial in Central Park to give his fans a chance to pay their respects, and remember John. Instead the director of this movie chose to use that site to have the killer attempt to commit suicide. I found this so disturbing and disrespectful to Lennon's memory. He was a man of peace who died a brutal senseless death, and to see such violence near this site felt like a revisiting a terrible wound for any Lennon fan. It ruined the movie completely for me . It could have been a decent movie, but it left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. Let John Lennon, and his family rest in peace and not be reminded of his vicious murder by this irresponsible movie. | 0neg
|
This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I saw it at the premiere at SXSW and was extremely disappointed. The director knew little about John Lennon and even said as much at the premiere. This is a drama, but people were laughing throughout at how cheesy the film was. That's never a good sign. The only saving graces were Dominic Monaghan and Jason Leonard as Livien's roommates/bandmates. They were funny while the rest of the movie took itself waaay too seriously. The cheesy dropping of Beatles lyrics was just absurd. The soundtrack was excellent, however, and was probably the best part of the movie. Unless you're one of those crazy, rabid Dominic Monaghan fans, don't bother with this one. | 0neg
|
First of all, I apologize for my English. <br /><br />Everybody from ex-Yugoslavia who isn't some extreme Serbian radical will agree with me. This movie, shows Serbian side, and only Serbian side. No Serbian crimes were represented. Luckily, everyone can see that this movie was made by Serbians, so there is no neutrality. All ''professionals'' who were interviewed are not professionals at all. Some guy only read a book written by some radical Serbian, the other one is genocide denier etc.etc.<br /><br />Even Slovenians were accused in this movie.And the whole war in Slovenia lasted for few days, and only because Slovenians were lucky.There weren't many Serbs in Slovenia, and YNA couldn't reach Slovenia trough Croatia (after Croatia-Serbia war started). Every Slovenian is outraged by all accusations in this movie. <br /><br />Every reasonable Croat will agree with one thing: The independence was too early. Perhaps all major conflicts could be avoided. However, mentioning WWII and some unrelated things was truly pathetic attempt to justify everything. Just imagine Japanese throwing nuclear bombs at Seattle and Washington, and saying that was justified by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You will find no evidence about strangled YNA soldier, and murdered Serbian civilians near Vukovar. But you can find the tape with reporter committing that his claims about Serbian civilians near Vukovar were lies. All over the internet. And the director forgot to mention the whole bombing of Vukovar by YNA (now on Serbian and Montenegro side-and 100% full of Serbs and Montenegrin) And let's not start about the Chetnik movement. At the beginning, it was simply a resistance movement. But director somehow forgot to mention collaboration with the Nazis, including Ustashe, ethnic cleansing, and fighting again the Yugoslav partisans. There are thousands of other things, but all of it can be easily checked. There are many misleading things in this movie. Only few of all accusations are true. Every Croatian is outraged by this movie. <br /><br />I believe that I don't need to mention Srebrenica genocide denial, the genocide that has too many evidence. Imagine the movie about holocaust denial. This movie is the same. And according to this movie Bosnian Muslims in Sarajevo bombed themselves. Every Bosnian Muslim is outraged by this movie. <br /><br />Somehow director forgot to mention the short occupation of small piece of Macedonian (FYROM) land by the Serbs. <br /><br />Croatians, Slovenians, Bosnians, and Macedonians never entered Serbian borders. If you are not Serbian and you actually started to believe some things from this movie, know that Serbs have some kind of propaganda that Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and Macedonians are actually Serbs who made up their history. So...<br /><br />Even 50% of Serbs will say that this movie is ''little'' extreme and pro-Serbian. <br /><br />And Serbian radicals are very, very pleased with this movie (there is about 40% Serbs who vote for radicals).<br /><br />I think everyone understands my points in here. In this so called documentary is very little truth, and my advice to everyone is: Inform yourself before watching this movie. After that, you will only laugh at all pathetic accusations.<br /><br />Watch real, neutral documentaries about death of Yugoslavia. | 0neg
|
don't watch this Serbian documentary and Serbian propaganda look out for this documentary and you will see facts and truth http://imdb.com/title/tt0283181/<br /><br />The Death of Yugoslavia documentary series (of five episodes) is a painstakingly compiled and researched account of the extended mass-bloodshed which marked the end of the old Federal Yugoslavia and spanned almost the entire first half of the 1990's. It includes a huge wealth of news footage and interviews with involved parties both "Yugoslav" and otherwise. The only real "improvement" which could be made to this amazing achievement would be the inclusion of later developments in the Balkans since the program was made. This was indeed done in the late 1990's for a repeat showing on BBC television, but the addition of some even more recent events would help to complete this admirably detailed and fulsome piece of work. Perhaps another whole episode might be warranted? The very succinct title of this documentary was made all the more appropriate by the eventual abandonment of the term "Yugoslavia" by the now-named Federal Republic of Serbia and Montenegro - a much belated and formal admission of that which occurred years before.<br /><br />not fiction like in "Yugoslavia: The Avoidable War (1999)" | 0neg
|
Before seeing this movie, please check out reviews available on the internet regarding the movie's falsification of events, particularly its prevarications regarding the widely accepted fact that 7-8,000 Muslim men were bused out of Srebrenica and shot by Serbian paramilitaries. The documentarian also belongs to various pro-Serbian American organizations. Please watch this movie critically, and read reviews beforehand. Most reviews argue that the documentarian takes his arguments too far, even if he raises questions that target the conventional wisdom regarding the war. A review in the NYTimes by Stephen Holden states that it would be "inaccurate to label this documentary pro-Serbian," but one should question both the presentation of facts, many of which are taken from reliable sources, and the omission of those facts that inculpate Serbian forces. I do not advise against seeing this documentary, but I do caution you to examine it with an especially critical eye (as one should do at all times anyway). | 0neg
|
When I saw this "documentary", I was disappointed to see Serbian Propaganda in action once again. Even though Serbia and its nationalist politics is main reason of Yugoslavian breakup, it is not mentioned in this "documentary", which is made by Bogdanovich whose name tells us that he is Serbian and his movie that he is far from being objective. It is one in the set of lies pushed by Milosevic regime. Everyone else is guilty only Serbians were right and victims, even though most of the War Criminals tried in Hague are Serbs, even though Serbs are one who have committed genocide against Bosnians , and attacked Slovenia, Croatia,and Bosnia all independent nations recognized by the UN.Breakup of Yugoslavia was not avoidable because Serbians did not want to release the grip their nationalism has put on Federal Yugoslav government, so SLovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Bosnia were forced to become independent nations in order to protect their interests.If you are interested in an objective documentary about breakup of Yugoslavia, and fact led documentary this is not it . You should watch "Yugoslavia:Death of a Nation", Made by Discovery channel and BBC. | 0neg
|
I just want to say that this production is very one sided, breaks the impartiality needed if you want to be taken seriously. <br /><br />There are no credits of the persons they interviewed, so you cant have an idea if they are worthy of being heard.<br /><br />Tells the story from just one point of view. To do this is very dangerous, because the next generations learns the bad idea, and thats why wars keep coming. I know this is not the only reason about wars, but doesn't help either.<br /><br />you can watch this documentary, but read in the internet a lot, before. Balcans are complex as human history is. | 0neg
|
There are no reasons of taking this documentary serious and there are four reasons for that: <br /><br />1) The people who made this documentary (including the director and the producer) are Serbs or of Serbian origin, therefore the criteria of neutrality fails. For instance, they mentioned that the diaspora Croats (the so called "Ustase") played a huge part in the fall of Yugoslavia, but they didn't mention that there were equal Serbian organizations as well (Cetniks)! For you who aren't that familiar with Balkan WW2 history: The Serbian so called "Cetniks" that were portrayed in the documentary as being so kind that they helped British paratroops during the war. Well, that's only half the truth. They were also a fascist (Monarch) group who collaborated with the Germans, but then switched side when Hitler started losing the war. It's also ironic that they don't mention the Cetnik leader Mihajlovic in the documentary, a man that is responsible for killing thousands of people and burning hundreds of villages all over Bosnia and Croatia. But they mentioned a certain Ante Pavelic...Hm...Allow me to be just a little suspicious.<br /><br />2) Most of the people interviewed are to me totally unknown. And I've studied this war for a long time (who is the old British lady!!! She really hasn't made her homework!) and they are not even presented by name, so they could More or less be anybody, maybe someone they took from the street. Who knows.<br /><br />3) In The documentary they talk about Kosovo and how the Serbs have lived there for ages, and therefore it should belong to Serbia (even though they are a minority). Well, when they mention the Serbian dominated part of Croatia (Krajina) suddenly the Serbs are portrayed as how they have the right to live there because it has been their home for so long. Fine, but what people don't know is that the largest city in Krajina (Knin) has great historical importance for the Croatian people. It was there where one of the most celebrated Kings of Croatian history (Zvonimir) was crowned, and therefore the city has a historical value for Croatia. The Serbs arrived almost 800 years or so later! But no, the Serbs should have Krajina and Kosovo according to the documentary. Is that fair? To me it looks like double standards of morality from the director. Plus, it is said in the documentary that the Croatian constitution didn't have any laws about minority rights, this is a lie because it was one of the first laws implemented BECAUSE of the fact that Croatia had a huge Serbian minority.<br /><br />4) The film mentions a radical Croatian Paramilitarian leader called Glavas. Or the Muslim radical Oric. They accused them of being a huge reason for the negative development of the war. Yes, they were radicals, but if you want to talk about radicals, why not also mention the Serbian radical paramilitary leaders such as Seselj and Arkan? The flaws are so many that I just presented a few of them, just so that people get an overview of the documentary. It looks like the people who made this documentary weren't well prepared and didn't have the guts to criticize the Serbs because they were afraid that their Serbian relatives would slap them or something. There aren't that many documentaries out there that are of good quality, but the best so far is "The death of Yugoslavia" where all the significant participants of the war are interviewed (e.g. Milosevic, Jovic, Bulatovic, Tudman, Izetbegovic, Karadzic etc.) and where you get a whole 5 hour explanation about the fall of Yugoslavia and the war.<br /><br />One other thing. I saw a comment on this documentary where the person was frustrated about why the US gave support to a country (Bosnia) that had connections with Bin Laden during the war. Well, first of all, all the countries involved in this conflict had nationalist presidents and because the Bosnian Muslims didn't have an old ethnic identity (previosly they were called "Muslim Croats") they had to rely on something else besides nationality to raise the spirit among the people, and that was by connecting them to the only thing that they had in common: Their religion. And they took help from the Mujahedin because no one else would support them. They had to fight the 4:th largest army in Europe! They needed all the help they could get. Nationalism is the best way to unite a people during war. History has shown us that. | 0neg
|
And how it made it into production astounds me. The main character is an obnoxious show off who isn't the least bit funny. I can't stand the character at all. He's a dumb ass with nothing to offer the show. <br /><br />This is the worst cartoon to surface in the last 10 years, no joke. The story lines are both poorly written and executed. The jokes are as bad as the ones on Disney's Sweet Life of Zack and Cody. I could not dislike this show more, it's terrible and should be canceled. Even the theme song is bad. The title, even worse.<br /><br />It's as though this show is written by a couple of 15 year olds that based the character on themselves and think they're hot stuff when they're really just arrogant and lack creativity as well as humor.<br /><br />Johnny Test, go away far and fast! | 0neg
|
This show is dull, lame, and basically rips off all sorts of various things in order to make it "original." First off: The animation is so ugly... Johnny's hideous... and everyone's annoying. The twins look like teen female Dexters from "Dexter's Lab," and Johnny is almost like a more intelligent male Dee Dee (also from "Dexter's Lab.") Secondly: The plots... are painfully lame, making them hard to follow. The gags are corny, and nothing really makes me feel compelled to laugh a little bit... especially when it tries to be funny. I only saw two episodes, but those alone turned me off.<br /><br />Third off: The whole theme song starts off by ripping off the tune to Green Day's "American Idiot." And, while I am not a big fan of that band, I find it really dumb that they would take the same opening melody, and then subtly change it, in order to make it their own.<br /><br />Case in point... it's a big fat ugly bore. 1/10 | 0neg
|
I had recently been watching Johnny Test in an attempt to find humor in it. I failed, horribly. Cartoon Network usually has a tendency to make their shows enjoyable by all audiences, but Johnny Test is "entertainment" in it's lowest form. The writing is incredibly predictable, and the running gags aren't much gags at all. Kids will love it, and that's about it.<br /><br />Now, this isn't to say that it's all bad. The original opening theme was actually pretty catchy, but for some reason they took the skeleton of it and figuratively smashed it with a figurative aluminum bat. It's a shame, because that was really one of the best things it had going for it.<br /><br />Some of the characters could be very interesting, in theory. With a little work, the characters could work well together, but they're too one-dimensional. Then again, this makes it easy for the kids to follow. <br /><br />The pace is a bit too fast as well. The episodes are too busy, leaving little time for clever writing. This is a real shame, because there are so many interesting concepts that the show brings forth. On the upside, however, the fast pace will stop the kids from losing interest, and that's really the entirety of the target audience.<br /><br />Overall, the show looks very good on paper, but just doesn't succeed in being funny or interesting. This is a show I want to like, but I'm incapable of it. There's just so much potential that isn't realized. Kids will enjoy it, but that's about it. | 0neg
|
I want so badly to give this piece of GARBAGE a zero, unfortunately, there isn't, so, I had to give it a 1 just to warn you about how stupidly terrible this imposter of a familiar cartoon really is! The characters look like they were drawn by pre-schoolers, no, wait, I've seen pre-schoolers do better! I prefer "Misadventures of Flapjack" to this terrible excuse for a cartoon! I'm probably saying what others have said, two words: RIP OFF!! Remember that episode of Dexter's Lab when they raced go-karts down that volcano? yeah, Mister Fellows even cashed in on that idea and failed! They even ripped off Shadow Lugia in that one episode that parodied Pokemon!(he even cashed in on that franchise!) That one character is a cheap rip off of Mandark from Dexter's Lab! Mister Fellows needs to be sued for statutory infringement for this piece of crap!! Everyone has their own opinion, but those of you who like Johnny (RIP-OFF) Test, your'e just lying to yourselves. Do yourself a favor, change the channel when this rip off tries to disgrace your screen! | 0neg
|
As you can guess by my rating and my title of this review that I don't like Johnny Test. Now I think I know what people are going to say, " How do you know how bad it is? Have you ever watched it?", I did watch this show a couple times because I am studying film and animation and this just doesn't hold a candle to my standards.<br /><br />I want to first talk about the animation because it is one of the most confusing things I have ever seen. Like the first two seasons or only first season had hand drawn animation. I thought it was a nice show to look at when it was hand drawn but then it switched to flash animation and the quality went down by a huge amount.<br /><br />So that is one strike in my eyes but lets look at the story of the show. It tries way too hard to be like Dexter's lab but there are differences because instead of one red headed scientist there is two and they are both female. There is a talking dog(why?), and the parents attitudes are switched somewhat. I have others but I don't think I can write them here ( I don't mean cursing but I mean I don't know if there is a limit for words.). Everything else though is spot on, even a DeeDee character Johnny himself. It just tries so hard to be Dexter but it just seems to me like a heartless knockoff.<br /><br />Lastly I want to talk about the jokes. Remember in Dexters lab some of the jokes involved yelling? Yes, yelling can be good for a joke or two but Dexter's lab also had sly remarks that made me have to go back and check to get the joke. Johnny Test just forgets all that and just yells 50% of the time and stops the music whenever a stupid joke or one liner appears. That isn't comedy, thats stupid comedy (I know what some people are thinking. Isn't three stooges stupid comedy? Watch that and Johnny Test back to back and you laugh more at the first option.). Sometimes the jokes are based on bizarre situations which, like Chowder, makes me mad. I have a rule for cartoons and comedies all together: To much bizarre doesn't equal comedy, it makes you just think "what am I watching?".<br /><br />So it strikes out on all accounts. Don't watch this show if you have any respect for comedy in anyway, shape, or form. | 0neg
|
This show is possibly the biggest, ugliest, most generic steam pile I've seen in children's programming that's actually become successful. The lead character, Johnny, while I understand he's supposed to represent an ordinary kid, isn't likable or even tolerable. The jokes are lame, overdone (i.e. the "Whoa! Didn't see that coming" gag. Come on, that wasn't even funny the first time. It's not even cute) and lack any form of primitive wit or inspiration. And lastly... it's just plain ugly to look at. While kids aren't especially critical of artistic talent, they still prefer eye candy. I can't stand watching the show, because in a way, the art style is just...gross. Hideous, in fact. Just plain crummy. <br /><br />I just can't stand that this is getting so much airtime. While I understand that nostalgia can be a little irrational and I shouldn't be getting my hopes up on it coming back... I really miss the old cartoons. Bring back Dexter's Laboratory, The Powerpuff Girls... anything but this crap. I guess it's just wishful thinking though.<br /><br />Simply put, I advise you don't waste your time on this show. I believe that truly good cartoons are able to be enjoyed by the big kids, too. And this doesn't cut it. | 0neg
|
I really hate this show! I had watched one episode, and I knew this show is really terrible. The story lines are both poorly written and executed and the jokes are really bad...I mean it is just a sh++ty rip-off of Dexter's Laboratory and Johnny Quest, 'bout an obnoxious boy with flamed blond hair with his twin genius sisters and talking dog; a stay-at-home dad and a smart, super-busy mom...Like oh-my-flippin'-God! Their dad is a mother-f**kin' crazy home-maker, isn't that so gay! If my dad is a home-maker, I would personally die! Of shame that is...Really I would.<br /><br />I have nothing else to about this...this travesty but only 3 word; count them 3 words to describe it:<br /><br />· Lame, · Stupid, and above all... · F**K UP! That's all I could say folks, it is definitely making my list of worst animated series EV-ER! If I had one that is. | 0neg
|
My brother is in love with this show, let's get this straight. I completely agree with the people who said it was copying off of Dexter's Lab and Fairly Odd Parents. <br /><br />I've never really liked fairly odd parents, I mean, some things did make me laugh, but most of the time it's downright annoying and not cute at all. This is almost the same way I feel about Johnny Test. Except, NOTHING makes me laugh on that show. The gags are so stupid and pointless, and to tell you the truth, maybe it's just me, but kids don't DRESS like that! Yes, I do think Johnny's hair is awesome, but c'Mon!<br /><br />And Dexter's Lab, that used to be one of my favorite shows and I still don't mind watching it. Which makes me disgusted and ashamed of Johnny Test making an absolute JOKE out of that wonderful show!<br /><br />One more thing. The. Dog. Is. So. Annoying. He is more loud and obnoxious than Johnny! And the gay accent? What the fudge! I hate the dog to death and I hope he dies, because that would be better for kids to see than listening and watching the obnoxious crap that goes on in that show, and picking up a gay accent.<br /><br />Unless you want you eyeballs to burn into miraculous flames and your brain fried from this show, don't watch it! | 0neg
|
Cartoon Network seems to be desperate for ratings. Beginning with the cancellation of Samurai Jack, the network seemed hellbent on removing all the shows that made it so popular, such as the Powerpuff Girls, Dexter's Lab, Dragonball Z, etc. When the ratings started to plummet, CN began putting up some pretty mediocre shows. Though Total Drama Island/Action and Chowder stand out because of their clever writing and audience-pleasing gimmicks, there are plenty of other shows that either terrible remakes (George of the Jungle) or rip offs of other shows, such as The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack, where the title character acts just like Spongebob, and then there's Johnny Test, which is something of a replacement for Dexter's Laboratory, though it's much more of a sheer rip off than anything.<br /><br />The show's characters are clearly derived from Dexter's Lab, only this time the focus is on Johnny, a blonde (or fiery-haired) character who torments his twin sisters, Susan and Mary, who just HAPPEN to look just like Dexter, from the orange hair, to the glasses, the impossible technology. There is even a rival genius named Bling Bling Boy or Eugene, who appears to be sitting in for Mandark. Then there's Dookie, Johnny's best friend and talking dog, one of Dexter's...I mean, Susan and Mary's early experiments.<br /><br />Dexter's Laboratory was probably one of the best cartoons on television, with its simple, but effective art style, lovable main character, and episodes that don't seem to be a long drag. Johnny Test is a lot different. The art style here isn't nearly as eye-pleasing. In fact, it looks absolutely awful. The characters have motivations that make them really annoying or repulsive. Like how most of the series' episodes consist Johnny and Dookie's quest for havoc on the neighborhood girl Sissy, whom Johnny secretly likes, or the twins' obsession over a boy next door. Seeing these two geniuses swoon at the sight of abs and the fact that Johnny appears to be someone you would NEVER want to associate with, there is no real connection between the viewer and characters.<br /><br />One thing the series heavily exploits in its name is that Johnny is Susan and Mary's guinea pig for their experiments. These range from turning Johnny fat, ugly, monstrous, and even into a woman. The twins then help Johnny in whatever scheme he's planning in return for his services. Whenever there's an episode involving this kind of "win/win" deal, it usually comes undone at the seems and those that doesn't come completely off the rails never ends satisfyingly.<br /><br />The writing ranges from mediocre to horrid, however. The 'fat' episode constantly repeats "It's Phat with a PH. There's a difference, you know." which is a line that should never be repeated, especially when the episode seems to PROMOTE child obesity, with Johnny becoming a famous star with money and videogames just by becoming fat.<br /><br />Let's talk about how the show doesn't completely rip off Dexter's Lab. The show tosses in a lot of characters, from two Men-in-Black named Mr. Black and Mr. White, a military general who seems to need all his problems solved through Johnny and his sisters, and LOTS of super villains, though even here, the show again steals ideas for other sources, like a Mr. Freeze teenage clone, an evil cat with a butler who wants cats to rule over man (like the evil talking cat from Powerpuff Girls), a bumbling maniac mastermind, a trio of evil skater 'dudes' and even a Mole Man, which is probably the most cliché villain in the media.<br /><br />To top it all off, alongside its ugly animation and unlikeable characters, the voice acting is either passable (like the voices for Mr. Black and Mr. White) to just plain ear-splitting (Johnny, Dookie, and just about every villain in the show). The theme song seems to be the only catchy thing to this show, but then it was redone just a few episodes with a band that just ruined it.<br /><br />So in the end, Johnny Test is not a good cartoon. Its horrible references and jokes about teen culture will dismantle little children's interest in the show, while its bright coloring, ripped-off characters, and dragging episodes will ruin the experience for teens. It's just another one of those crappy shows that Cartoon Network is over-promoting to trick people to watching it (like MTV toward rap). If you need a show that will satisfy your children for a half hour, you'd better stick to Spongebob, because Johnny Test is more of a "test" of patience than anything else. | 0neg
|
Oh dear! The first time I heard of this bad show was when one of my friends was yelling like an idiot "JOHNY TEST" while we were playing video games. I thought he was confusing "Johny Quest" (by the way, one of the best cartoons I've ever seen in my life", and changing the "Quest" with "Test". Its something weird that I'm wrong, but actually I was wrong, he wasn't changing nothing, he heard of this show.<br /><br />One day, while watching TV, I heard that Cartoon Network was going to be released. I wasn't sure of what was the plot of this show, so I adventured myself to watch it, and here is my answer "I WANT MY DAMN HOUR BACK" (Because I watched this crap and "My Gym Partner's a Monkey".<br /><br />This is one of the worst shows I've ever seen. First, the beginning, with the most stupid song in the world, then the plot. Oh, where are my manners? I haven't said the plot of this show. Is about a boy who has to AMAZINGLY INTELLIGENT sisters, that have a lab and make experiments with their own brother. OHHH, now I see why his name is Johny TEST, he is the test of his sisters experiments.<br /><br />You know, I honestly miss Dexter's Lab (before it was transformed to the NEW Dexter, a total crap too). This is a bad copy of that old good show, except that this show is amazingly bad. Don't watch it, make something more productive in that half-hour than watch this crap. | 0neg
|
OMG this was the most painful experience of my life watching this. I could even finish it what is happening to Nick. Their best thing on teen Nick is Drake and Josh and thats about to go off air. The kids songs are kinda of annoying and the so are the kids. My little sister wanted to watch the show because she likes anything that comes on Disney or nick usually but after finish watching this show she said " one of the worst shows that I have ever saw so boring." My little brother actually fell asleep I envy him. In short if your 3yrs old with no brain activity you'll enjoy this show otherwise change the channel now. | 0neg
|
That's right, you heard me this movie is a freaking' ABOMINATION. First off, the band, who the hell is going to go see or listen to a band called "THE NAKED BROTHERS BAND"?!?! Not only is the name terrible but so are the musicians, they can't even play anything! Also, the lead singer sounds more girly than Geddy Lee, and even more his voice is horrible! Not only are they terrible musicians but they're terrible actors. Led by a crappy director and thin plot, this has got to be the dumbest movie ever. I wish this website would let you use a vote of ZERO OR BELOW out of 10, because giving this filth a 1/10 is being WAY too generous.<br /><br />I'm not sure that you can call this a comedy film. If you're looking for comedy with music, go to that "Weird Al" Yankovic guy 'cause he does it a whole lot better than these untalented tweens. | 0neg
|
My favorite memory of this show and the band was when I got together with a bunch of my friends which are NBB haters and had a big bonfire and we took a CD of their songs and the DVD of the movie and a bunch of pictures of the band members and threw them into the fire and danced a happy jig around the burning stuff while singing "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead". That was the best thing about the show and this show is stupid with a capitol God this show sucks. I hate it so much. Get rid of the crappy car. You guys really suck! You really ruined the whole channel! No offence or anything but you guys need to get a life, I mean, really, who makes a stupid show with a stupid lead singer that can't even sing! You guys really sound horrible and need to get a life as hobos or something, except Roselina. She's really pretty. But still, you guys reak! | 0neg
|
A very bad attempt at a young spinal tap. At least the music in spinal tap was good.<br /><br />This is really a very sad case of Hollywood nepotism at it's worst. A bunch of Hollywood execs, bad musicians and producers create some "poopie" show so their kids can be in the spotlight. Oh please!!! The potty humor was even bad. I hate this stuff when there is really incredibly talented kids (musicians, actors and artists) out there busting their butts to have success and this crap comes along.<br /><br />Help u all!!!! Why wasn't Gene Simmons in it??? Ameriac's taste in entertainment is going down the toilet. | 0neg
|
"Show me your boobies!" is not funny, and certainly not on a channel that shows cartoons if you understand where I'm coming from. I don't want my 6 and 7 years old daughters thinking like that or hearing that. I find it sad that Nick hyped this crap THAT much and then that's what we get, stupid little kids acting like stupid adults. I know it's meant to be humorous but consider we out there that have sweet little innocent girls in K and 1st Grade who can't wait to see this. I had to comment on how disappointed I was when I saw it. My daughters won't be watching it. I'd love to block Nick but don't have the heart at this point but if Nick keeps putting out this kind of crap I'll have to. | 0neg
|
I hate this movie. I hate the show. i hate just about everything about it. it's so annoying and stupid. everyone's saying that nat and alex wolff are heroes in the music world and that they're going to make it big. WHAT KIND OF DRUGS ARE YOU TAKING???!!!?!?!?!?! nat and alex are going to end up as either hobos or end up like Jane Hudson from "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?". i could only get through not even 20 minutes of this one, barely 30 seconds of the show, and i managed to survive about half an hour of 'Battle of the Bands'. How anyone could cheer for these guys in the audience at the Kid's Choice Awards, i have no clue. days before the movie premiere on Nick, most of the teen girl actresses on Nick (Jamie Spears, Emma Roberts, Lindsey Shaw, etc.) showed up in a commercial influencing brain-dead kids about how awesome nat and alex wolff are. first off, they didn;t trick me, and second of all, nat and alex probably either drugged them or payed them loads of money in order to say that and sound convincing, because i don't see how anyone could find this show/movie entertaining. the music is just awful. nat's singing sounds like a sick, dying moose on crack. alex is the most annoying movie/TV show character EVER. he's not funny, he's annoying, he's really weird, and he thinks he's hot and knows everything about girls. this guy's lucky if he ever manages to get laid. you know this show is fake when you find out that some of the characters (in real life) don't even exist!! the character Jesse is actually played by Nat and Alex's cousin jesse Draper (they mustve had some budget problem). Their father is not single, he's married to Polly Draper, but she doesn't appear on the show, making it seem the Wolff's are mom-less. Rosalina doesn't exist either. Her name is Allie DiMeco. I'll tell ya, the Naked Brothers are gonna be in some deep sh** when their "fans" find out the whole thing is staged. 0/10 | 0neg
|
It's terrible how some people can get away with such things... This is one of those overrated things again... And I hate things that are overrated that are no good... Why can't we have more TV Shows and Movies that actually have a story and excellent music and that are well written and are actually about something?? It takes many people to make this movie, the series, and the band, all possible, and those people are all wasting their time... It seems that the bands are getting younger and younger... I looked at how small that they were, and I thought that they were 5 or 6. It's sad that kids are performing that young... They are still too young... Performing takes a lot of work, and they have many other things that they need to do with their lives... The idea about having a very young band is horrible... They need to stop having bands like this... And I don't like the idea at all, nor the kids themselves... They are very annoying, very young, and their name is "The Naked Brothers Band" The people that are involved in this, and the people that are supporting this have all lost their minds... Whenever this band is shown on TV, change the channel, and petition to get it banned...<br /><br />And I know that this is a very boring comment thing, but you get the point...<br /><br />This Band Sucks... Get Rid Of It... | 0neg
|
I totally hated the movie. It was so retarded. They need to get some acting lessons....no, wait, that won't help because the Naked Brothers Band people a retards. You know why I am here even though I am a Naked Brothers Band hater? To warn people before they watch the dumb movie so that the NBB doesn't get any money from it so then they can't make any more amateur stupid songs that are so retarded that any old guy could go and write it in 10 seconds. Not only are the song lyrics retarded, they sing badly. Okay, I'm kinda getting off the movie here.....anyways, it was boring and they acted horribly. It was NOT funny at all even though they tried really hard for it to be. I guess they deserve some credit for that...well, the movie isn't worth your time. Just look at its rating. The movie (and the series) is very painful to watch for anyone who has even half a brain. Seriously, if you liked it, you need to go watch movies where the actors actually act, not babbling their lines in a monotone. I am on the drama club at my school and some people there are actually BETTER than those Nat and Alex guys. Hurry before it's too late! I seriously thought that Herbie Fully Loaded was better than this piece of poopie. I don't even know why I went through even HALF of that film. I don't think it even deserves to be called a film... | 0neg
|
wow, the Naked Brothers Band. What should i say. I guess i can say this show just sucks. number one: they have no talent, they probably can't even play the instruments. number 2: on the commercial it said they were famous but nobody even heard of them till there crappy show came on. Look, i really don't hate it that bad, i'd give it like a 4 out of 10, but what annoys me is how everyone says they have such great talent and Nat is SO deep and writes deep lyrics. Deep my ass! he talks about hardcore wrestlers with inner feelings. wow, i could read what it says on the walls of a bathroom and it would be more deep than that. And they didn't get famous by themselves, their parents are famous celebrities and wanted their kids to be too so they made up a bad show. i have a feeling that it will be canceled soon. | 0neg
|
I mean seriously what group would sing about a crazy car? So what if their ten, It's way too immature for a little kid to sing about "being my women" I mean seriously! The name is pretty corny too, naked brothers? just because they take off their pants??? HOW CREATIVE.I don't get why they need a TV show I mean most artist don't really need a TV show about themselves, especially the naked brothers band. Heck how many of them are in the freaking group. And seriously whats with the movie? Jeez Nick use to be the hightlight of my years growing up but seriously The naked brother band? SO many parents would not let their kids watch this especially with the name the Naked Brother's band, its a stupid, uncreative show that should not be aired onto TV. | 0neg
|
Okay I saw the sneak preview of this stupid movie. First off the movie is so posed and not real, they are all acting. They can't sing. They are way too full of themselves. Its awful. Yes kids like 8 to 10 might enjoy but its really stupid. I mean they say their manager is a kid. And there record label is fake. Its stupid. Don't see it.<br /><br />As for the set up and directing, not so bad. It is a cute documentary but it documents a stupid thing. <br /><br />Only see this if you don't really like good music. Also, it's very corny. It's not even tasteful. I hate to be so mean...but this really is a piece of junk. | 0neg
|
I know the people and I did some of the animation and graphic design and the show is horrible! They are rich little kids who don't have any talent, and probably just begged Nick to accept them! Alex has played the drums for one yearm, I've played for 4 1/2! The movie is terrible and so is the show! This is the craziest most mixed up comedy that even isint funny I've ever seen. It is so stupid it makes me want to barf!!! It is just so crazy that Nickelodeon would ever accept something like this and so dumb! They are sooo stupid and weird! I hate them and their show and think once Nick realizes how stupid it is they will most hopefully take it off! | 0neg
|
I have watched this movie a few times and never really thought it was that funny, but it's still fun to watch and good for a few laughs.<br /><br />Its about women that work at a company and their boss is a jerk and they end up giving him a taste of his own medicine, and try to get the respect they deserve.<br /><br />The acting is really good. Dabney Coleman is one of those 80's stars that plays a good bad guy, not really evil, just unlikeable. Dolly Partin is lovable and fun to watch in comedies and her down south wit really shines here. Jane Fonda is so-so and does little for me. Lily Tomlin is the best thing about this movie, she has the funniest lines and made me laugh out loud several times, gotta love her.<br /><br />I could recommend this to anyone that likes 80's comedy. I like the movie but it has things about it that I don't like. It starts off great and has a nice flow and then everything starts coming together all at once and made me care less about the characters. They all have little fantasies about what they would like to do the boss and although 'cute' I just thought it slowed down the flow of the movie. As the movie goes on it once again picks up and the funniest things happen and then once again it slows down, only to wrap up in a quick manner thats too good to be true.<br /><br />4 out of 10 stars, but give it a try if you haven't seen it. I think depending on ones mood it may be more or less likable. | 0neg
|
I was interested in the title and description of Big Rig while attending the SXSW Film Festival in Austin, TX. However, I was eager to get the heck out of the seats as soon as Big Rig ended. Big Rig is comprised of several "big rig" drivers who set out to deliver goods driven across the United States. The characters are all wonderful people, however the filmmakers never dug deep into the complexity of them as people. Instead, the story meanders as much as the maps in the film are meant to guide, but never do. At most, we get lost. We - the audience - end up going nowhere and, like the direction of the storytelling, end up somewhere but without direction, location, or plot. Why are we here? Where are we? How did we get here? The storytelling is sloppy and the directors' intent on "humanizing" a group of people who they regard as "overlooked" and "invisible" comes across as unconsciously and irritatingly condescending. The problem here here lies in the perspective of the directors instead of the truck drivers. The directors bring their own naive assumptions about truckers forward and then simply edit the film to confirm those assumptions. Overall, the story lacks any tension, the film is entirely too long (should have been a 15 min sketch), the big question of "So what" is never answered, and the entire film is one piece of see-through propaganda that does nothing to further "enlighten" (as the directors claim) the outside world about big riggers. | 0neg
|
This is exactly the type of film that frustrates me the most. Great cast, great director, great story potential, then they ruin it all with a screenplay that goes nowhere...and says nothing while going there! There is no depth here whatsoever. No depth of characters, no depth of plot, no depth of surprise, suspense, or common sense. We know what's happening, we are told how they plan to fix the problem, they fix the problem, throw a surprise at us near the end that fails to generate any suspense, then they end the film abruptly. Wasted opportunity.<br /><br />On the plus side, Glenn Ford leads a cast of UK (and one French) actors who are all fantastic, doing an incredibly impressive job with the one-dimensional writing they were given. One of the absolute favorites is Herbert Walton as "Old Charlie", who provides some wonderful bits of humor and warmth to a dark and serious film. I also thought the film had a great look to it...all shadows and fog...very film noir in feel.<br /><br />Even though the actors do the best they can and the directing is enjoyable, it still just isn't enough for me to recommend spending the time to view the film. There are far better Glenn Ford movies out there: The Big Heat, Gilda, Affair in Trinidad, etc. | 0neg
|
When I first saw this movie, it was titled TERROR ON A TRAIN and was the back half of a double feature. Glenn Ford, an armament expert is called on to defuse a hidden bomb on a train loaded with high explosives. The tension is slow and steady; and this black & white film runs only about an hour and twelve minutes. All these years later on TV; the tension and drama has lost most of its impact. This is still a good movie as far as early 50s standards go.<br /><br />Along with Ford are Anne Vernon and Maurice Denham. The villain/saboteur is played by Victor Maddern. | 0neg
|
A real blow-up of the film literally. This British film is boringly made.<br /><br />What an exciting plot! A terrorist places bombs on a train. How could the writers and producers of this stinker turn this into such a dull story?<br /><br />Glenn Ford, as the expert called upon to defuse the bomb, is given awful writing material to work with. Naturally, just as he is called in, his wife, Anne Vernon, is about to leave him. No wonder we never heard of Miss Vernon. After such a film, it would be enough to end her career.<br /><br />That elderly man who loved trains and interferes is our 1953 version of senile dementia. I thought it was highly insulting to show this man, even at the end. | 0neg
|
This British film is truly awful, and it's hard to believe that Glenn Ford is in it, although he pretty much sleepwalks through it. The idea of a bomb on a train sounds good...but it turns out this train ends up parked for the majority of the film! No action, no movement, just a static train. The area where the train is parked is evacuated, so it's not like there's any danger to anyone either. In fact, this film could be used in a film class to show how NOT to make a suspense film. True suspense is generated by letting the audience know things that the characters don't, a fact apparently unknown to the director. SPOILER: the train actually has two bombs on it, but we are led to believe there is only one. After the first bomb is defused, it feels as if there is no longer a reason to watch the film any more. But at the last minute, the villain, who has no apparent motivation for his actions, reveals there are two. Nor are we certain WHEN the bombs will go off, so we don't even have a classic "ticking bomb" tension sequence. A good 10 minutes or more are spent watching Glenn Ford's French wife thinking about leaving him, and then wondering where he is . She's such an annoying character that we don't care whether she reconciles with him, so when she does, there's nothing emotional about it. Most of the other characters are fairly devoid of personality, and none have any problems or issues. It's only 72 minutes, but it feels long because it's tedious and dull. Don't waste your time. | 0neg
|
Truly awful film made by cinematographer-turned-director Ted Tetzlaff. Decent enough looking film but for a time-bomb movie totally devoid of any tension whatsoever. Ford, as someone put it here, sleepwalks though this one with his characteristic smirk. There are some details thrown around- Canadian ex-army or RAF, defused bombs in the war, his wife is leaving him- but none of these back stories add up to much. The bomber himself is a complete mystery. Why is he trying to blow up this shipment of mines? For that matter, what time period are we talking about here? WWII or postwar?? I assumed the latter which makes bomber's motive even more salient. Generally, though, just a horrible film. There are plenty of good time-bomb flicks to skip this one. Watch any episode of "Danger UXB" for a more exciting time, at about the same running time. | 0neg
|
Letting the class watch this in English was a bad idea. Films that are serious and more educational can have an effect, but it appears this one didn't have any effect whatsoever on the class - whenever the teacher left, conversations quickly started - and I didn't hear the words "Shakespeare" or "Tempest" being used at all. And when you look at this, it is easy to see why. The acting is nothing special - everyone seems bored to bits, just reading from the page without a care in the world. Shakespeare always did prefer expository dialogue to action and death, but I just couldn't understand a word anyone was saying. The costumes aren't too bad and neither are the special effects - the class may not have loved the film, but they weren't exactly taking the p*ss either. But it is hard to joke at a film that is devoid of any sort of inspiration or joy. The scenes on the ship at the start of the film weren't too badly done - though the rain looked a bit unrealistic, everything else was done well and good. But where were the severed heads and exploding masts? Where was the death? Where was the inspiration? The character of Ariel would have been taken a lot more seriously had he been wearing clothes - but as all was on show, he was just another excuse for a joke. This film is not in any way appealing to either sex. The women and girls won't have any romance or comedy to enjoy, and there is an abundance of naked men and lack of action or death that will put most men and boys off. The Tempest wasn't badly done, but this felt like something the producers HAD to make, not something they wanted to make. And the general boredom and lack of inspiration show. 3/10 | 0neg
|
SPOILERS (ALTHOUGH NONE THAT AREN'T REVEALED IN THE FIRST TWO MINUTES OF THE MOVIE)<br /><br />Robin Williams is actually quite good in this as the friendly, lonely, emotionally stunted loser Sy. He makes a very human, even sympathetic psycho, and really disappears into the character--no small feat for such a recognizable performer. <br /><br />Too bad the rest of the movie is such a waste. The supporting performances (and performers) wouldn't look out of place in a soft-core porno (it doesn't help that every character but Sy is made of 100% cardboard). At times, the director actually seems to be trying to frustrate suspense: we know from the very first moments a) that Sy is a complete whack-job, b) that he survives, and c) that he gets nabbed by the cops at the end. So all we're left to ponder is the hows and the whys, and the answers provided aren't all that interesting.<br /><br />The plot is plodding and contrived, and features some nonsensical moments (for instance, the husband berates his wife for her expensive tastes, even though she seems to spend all her free time at the local discount superstore). About two thirds of the way through, Sy does something so irredeemably stupid that it makes one wonder how much he actually cares about his grand revenge scheme. And the final clichéd explanation of his psychosis, right out of `Peeping Tom,' is a terrible copout.<br /><br />The dialogue is of the absolute worst sort. It's not overwritten, or awkward, or unbelievable, or bad in any other way that could be considered fun, even for bad-movie lovers. Instead, every line is purely, hideously functional--it's as if the director handed a plot outline to a newspaper copywriter and said, `Hey, I need a workable script on this--in an hour.' It made me want to scream, honestly.<br /><br />This movie seems to be a throwback to the suburban beware-the-help thrillers of the eighties and nineties (`The Hand That Rocks the Cradle,' e.g.), and while it's certainly unpleasant, it's never really scary. Sy's fetishism occasionally makes you feel uncomfortable, but on its own that's not enough to make the film work. In the end, lack of craftsmanship from everyone involved, except Robin Williams, sinks this one. 3 out of 10. | 0neg
|
There were good performances by Robin Williams and others but the movie was dull overall and very disappointing compared to the positive reviews.<br /><br />I thought Sy might become a serial killer who bores people to death: a forlorn guy in ugly clothes trails his victims around food courts, quoting Oprah and reciting his medical history until they beg him to shoot them.<br /><br />I think the movie mostly appeals to egomaniacs who think strangers are interested in their photos. I expect most retail workers want a break from the customers. | 0neg
|
Up until the last few minutes of the movie, I would have given the movie a score of 7 or 8 stars. However, the ending is so terrible and "Hollywoodized" that it completely undermines the first 80% of the movie.<br /><br />The plot revolves around a submarine and the possibility that they received an order to fire their nuclear missiles. The Captain, Gene Hackman, is all for launching, while his first officer, Denzel Washington, is in favor of confirming the launch orders first. The problem is, to launch BOTH the captain and 1st officer must simultaneously use their launch keys. Hackman is determined to launch and Washington stands firm until eventually this results in armed insurrection aboard the sub. Eventually, the mistake is discovered and the missiles are not launched. Cool. However, here comes the part that just doesn't ring true. After they are back on land and go before a review board, Washington and Hackman (who'd just spent half the movie trying to kill each other) shake hands and are all buddy buddy! Huh?! Too trite an ending to make the movie worth while for me. | 0neg
|
This movie is an insult to ALL submariners. It was stupid. It appeared to have been written by monkeys. The acting was absurd. If this is the view most people have of the Navy, then I weep for our defense. This movie was awful. I put it below "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" as far as submarine movies go. Gene Hackman must have really needed rent money to do this crap. Denzel Washington must have been high. Little in the plot makes any sense. And the ending. For a mutineer to be rewarded for his crime? Only Hollywood would think of this garbage. If you haven't figured it out yet, I didn't like it. And if it wasn't for all the pro comments, I would not have bothered to post. | 0neg
|
As a former submariner, this was one of the worst submarine movies I have ever seen. First of all, a mutiny aboard any US Naval vessel, particularly a Nuclear Powered Trident submarine in unthinkable. These men are the best of the best and are dedicated to their mission. The responsibility they carry is awesome and they take it very seriously all the way from the Captain to the most junior crew member. I could never see a crew of any ship split their alliance between the Captain and the Executive Officer. An Executive Officer who acted as the Character played by Denzel Washington did would be relieved of his duties and Court Martialed, then drummed from the Navy. It is no surprise the Navy refused to send a technical adviser to help in making this film. Lastly, if any member of a submarine crew made the amount of noise made underway on this vessel they would be severely reprimanded. Submariners learn early in their career to be as quiet as possible to avoid detection. They don't slam doors and even speak quietly and wear soft soled shoes when underway. I was amazed at how loud they portrayed the crew while underway. Loud music would never be tolerated. I know portraying submarine life in reality would not sell movie tickets, but this is over the top to the point of being ridiculous. I would not recommend this movie to anyone. | 0neg
|
Yep, lots of shouting, screaming, cheering, arguing, celebrating, fist clinching, high fiving & fighting. You have a general idea as to why, but can never be 100% certain. A naval knowledge would be an advantage for the finer points, but then you'd probably spot the many flaws. Not an awful film & Hackman & Washington are their usual brilliant, but the plot was one you could peg pretty early on. I'm still waiting to see a submarine film where people get on with each other & don't argue, but then you probably wouldn't have a film.<br /><br />4/10 | 0neg
|
We laughed our heads off. This script is so incredible you either zap to CNN or go to sleep.<br /><br />My dad was a sea captain for 30 years, he could not believe his eyes when he saw the movie.<br /><br />During his experience as an officer he once claimed command over the ship, the captain drunk 3 bottles of whiskey/daily and (sorry) s**t on his desk. Of course this was not on a nuclear mission.<br /><br />For instance, the fire in the kitchen, fire is the most important thing on any ship, nuclear or not. To give a drill at that time is just Hollywood script. When a captain is put under arrest, he IS under arrest, you take all his keys and open the safe where the guns are kept. This is stored within minutes in a well guarded room. He CANNOT escape, it's just like in prison.<br /><br />Funny thing is, my dad also had a dog on board, however, we see how Hackman let him pee in the control room. This is not done, ever. My dad cleaned all the mess the dog made wherever he was.<br /><br />Hackman and Washington make the three stars this movie is credited for, all the rest is bulls**t.<br /><br />When we do know that 23 people were still alive on the Koersk, this film gets an extra dimension.<br /><br />If you want to see a real thriller about a submarine rent: Thas Boat.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
If asked how I would define the word " Shallow " I would reply " Watch a Jerry Bruckheimer production " . If asked how I would define the phrase " Wasted potential " I would reply " Watch a Jerry Bruckheimer production " . Bruckheimer productions are nearly always sure fire hits at the box office but nearly always receive critical pannings from the critics . Off the top of my head I can only think of AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN and BLACK HAWK DOWN getting a lot of critical acclaim . <br /><br />CRIMSON TIDE too received some begrudging acclaim from critics , it`s certainly one of Bruckheimer`s better films which alas isn`t saying much . The problem I had is the scenario that sets up the story : The Russians are fighting the Chechens and the conflict spreads through the whole of Russia leading to an ultra nationalist Russian to take over a nuclear missile base and threaten the West if they interfere . Maybe the ending of the cold war had everything to do with it but I found this set up very unconvincing . It`s not helped by some errors in geography like the French carrier Foch being in the Med ( Wouldn`t the Foch be better positioned in the black sea ? ) or that the expositional newsreel consists of familar footage featuring conflicts from the Balkans , the first gulf war and even Vietnam . Once again the adjective " Very unconvincing " crept into my mind . The story does improve somewhat when the story proper - A battle of wills concerning orders between a nuclear submarine commander and his number two - gets underway . Director Tony Scott does his best as do the cast , but the problem still lies in an unconvincing scenario . The worst thing is that if this had been made in the mid 1980s when WW3 was a real possibility - Nay probability - this film would have terrified me , but after the cold war ended so had the dangers of nuclear war which means CRIMSON TIDE has little impact . | 0neg
|
What an appalling film. Don't get me wrong, Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington are good actors, but aside from a few interesting set pieces, the film is mostly taken up with hysterical submariners shouting, crying, sweating and generally freaking out when anything goes wrong.<br /><br />Take that with simplistic asides to make sure the audience still understand what's going on (the scene where Denzel Washington explains to a radio repairman how he must be like Scotty in Star Trek is nothing more than a joke) and you have a dumbed down thriller not worthy of the acting.<br /><br />Let us just hope that the real nuclear US Navy is not in the hands of such a script!<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
This movie had some andrenaline kickers, but it's an old story that simply could never happen. Navy protocols could never break down that much that a crew much less an XO could ever go that far against the Captain. I'll take Dr. Strangelove any day if I wish to see this plot. Sidenote--the US Navy did not support this film. | 0neg
|
What a load of Leftist Hollywood bilge. This movie glorifies mutiny as brave and noble if it be for pacifist principles. The fairytale ends with the pacifist character, played by Danzel Washington, actually getting promoted for his treason. What is it with these Hollywood tools? Is this still payback for McCarthyism?<br /><br />If I sound cynical it's because I am fed up with movies hawking a political agenda. The military brass in this movie are portrayed as, what else? Gung-ho war mongers. Sound familiar? Ever see a movie where the CIA or any government agency is not evil? Think about it. Yet again, Crimson Tide stresses the point. The Hackman character, U-boat captain Ramsey, comes across like a raving lunatic, until the very end when, of course he comes to his senses, does a complete 360, renounces his blood lust, suggests a promotion for the treasonous Ron Hunter, and repents by retiring from the service. A guy mutinies, takes command of your boat, puts the U.S at grave risk of receiving a nuclear first-strike, and you promote him???? What hogwash! | 0neg
|
Edwin Porter's 1903 short film entitled "The Great Train Robbery" bursts onto the screen with so much excitement and ingenuity that one prepares to be blown away by another pioneering early film. Just like Melies' "A Trip to the Moon", critics have hailed this as being the film that introduced the western genre into modern cinema. In my eyes, they were right. It had everything from the planning, the actual heist of the train, the murder of an unwanted civilian, and that looming final scene that makes you realize that these villains mean business it was all monumental for its time. From here to Eastwood, every western filmmaker has used Porter's image in some form or another to create their own story. One cannot say that this film didn't open the door, but the struggle comes from the story itself. The genre was defined by Porter, but outside of its initial excitement there really isn't anything to grapple onto. Perhaps I am jaded by the cliché modern westerns and their haphazard messages, but how can something be cliché before being cliché? To me, "The Great Train Robbery" seemed forced, untraceable, and unsurprising.<br /><br />Unlike Melies, Porter tells a very linear story. Robbers change the course of a train, rob it, then shoot at random people just to prove they are the true villains, and the final scene ends like any predestined film, without any surprises or glitches, and that looming man with a gun to your proverbial face. It is bland. Porter's film is boring. In the edition I watched, there was an addition of color near to the end to emphasize emotion, which felt cheap and was not encouraging to the filmmaker, or to the viewer. The issue remains that while it is important, Porter's film has been borrowed time and time again, it has in effect become diluted. The story itself does not carry the emotional powerhouse it once has. Unlike Melies early film, I cannot watch this again. I know what has happened, I know there is very little missing from behind the scenes, and that finally it is just what it has set out to be a simple story leading from point A to point B to point C. This issue is not only my gripe with this film, but also the strongest element to see in such an early film. While it was dull, the fact that it told such a strong narrative that our characters were characters with motives and drives, was outstanding to see. In an era where nonfiction films seemed mainstream, this broke the mold. Again, not that I am jumping on the prophetic bandwagon about this film it is an important film it just isn't a great film.<br /><br />Overall, I was eager to jump into this film to see where the roots of the western genre were planted, but I was equally as happy to leave this film behind. Porter is a talented director, and G.M. Anderson obviously went on to be very successful in the created field, but I just wasn't in awe of the film. I wasn't expecting big budget effects like Melies work, nor was I expecting a duplicate of "A Trip to the Moon", but I did want to see the same creativity, exploration, and originality. I felt Porter played it safe, if that can be said with such an early film, but I couldn't feel the excitement as our villains did their evil deeds. I wasn't rooting for anyone, and the final conclusion proved that the kitschy-ness of it had worn off minutes after the film started. It was pioneering, but not monumental. "The Great Train Robbery" has lost its space in the time capsule of cinema.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of ***** | 0neg
|
"Washington Square" is a flat, shabby adaptation of the short novel by Henry James. Indeed, the novel is very good, but far from the level of James' masterpieces. Moreover its simple, eventless story seems unsuited to make it into a film (although William Wyler, with his "The Heiress", gave in 1949 a beautiful version of the novel). <br /><br />Anyway, the movie completely betrays the spirit of this work of the great American writer. In the novel, the heroine Catherine is shy, not very attractive and somewhat clumsy, but nonetheless she is a sound, intelligent young woman, and she's not as naive as it may seem. Her attachment for her father is dignified and respectful, with no morbid sides in it. Along three quarters of the movie, Catherine (Jennifer Jason Leigh) just seems to be mentally retarded, poor thing. In the last quarter, she suddenly (and incredibly) becomes intelligent, aware of her dignity as a woman, and all that.<br /><br />The director Agnieszka Holland has added two vulgar scenes to the story. The first, when the nervous child Catherine has, well, troubles with her vesica. The second scene, when we see on the background a sort of open-air brothel, with prostitutes taking their customers behind tents, and so on. Nothing could be more contrary to the spirit and artistic ideals of Henry James. It is notorious that the writer was extremely decent and demure even for the standards of the Victorian age. I defy anyone to find any coarseness anywhere in the thousands of pages of James' huge literary production. I really was particularly annoyed by these two scenes.<br /><br />Yes, I know that a director needs reasonable freedom in the screen adaptation of a novel. But if a director utterly ignores or misunderstands the art of an author (here Henry James), I don't see the point of using his work to make a bad movie. <br /><br />The acting is adequate to the movie: poor and flat, in spite of the talent of Albert Finney and Maggie Smith. "Washington Square" is definitely a non-recommendable film. | 0neg
|
I do not know who is to blame, Miss Leigh or her director, but her performance as Catherine is almost impossible to watch. Ben Chaplin on the other hand does a superior job - against all odds as far as I am concerned. His character is entirely too charming and appealing. but certainly not shown as greedy enough, to put up with Leigh's character's silliness. Chaplin appears bemused by what cannot possibly be understood as Leigh's shyness and lack of grace, but rather her orthopedic unsteadiness. There has to be some element of believability to his interest, but as played it is incomprehensible. The performances do not jibe. Maggie Smith and Albert Finney are, of course, wonderful despite any effort to derail them. The supporting cast is also a pleasure to watch. What a pity, too, the leads don't work together because the production is lovely to look at. | 0neg
|
I love Henry James books and Washington Square was no exception. I was very excited to see a new movie coming out, based on the book of that title. Jennifer Jason Lee is an exceptional actress and Ben Chaplin good enough to play the lead roles. Albert Finney is miscast and doesn't carry the role well. I wanted to shoot Maggie Smith....or rather her silly, insipid role. The real problem and what's lacking in this latest version is a good script, music, and direction.<br /><br />I fell asleep in the theater watching this long, drawn out and exceptionally boring movie. There are more pauses in the dialog than a Pinter Play. In the book I felt a deep caring for Catherine Sloper and her life. The movie had just the opposite effect. I also disliked the twist where her aunt has a sexual attraction to Morris. Eeeeeeeek. YUK.<br /><br />Watch it if you can't sleep, it's a definite snoozer. Don't watch it if you're depressed. You'll need Zoloft after this.<br /><br />Sure, "The Heiress" was exceptional with Olivia Haviland and Montgomery Clift in the title roles. The actor who played her father was on the mark as the uncaring, cold father....still grieving for his dead wife and hating Catherine for it. The movie was not faithful to the book but neither is this one.<br /><br />This movie was a box office flop. I have no doubts as to why. | 0neg
|
This movie has some beautiful sets and Albert Finney does a great job as the ruthless father. The movie fails because Jennifer Jason Leigh is too jumpy as the daughter and is no match whatever for Olivia De Havilland's far more nuanced, mature rendering in The Heiress (1949). The film's feminist-leaning conclusion also goes against the austere conclusion of the novel, Washington Square, whose author, Henry James, savagely parodied feminism in some of his other novels. As a fan of old Hollywood and great literature, I found this movie very disappointing. | 0neg
|
I understand there was some conflict between Leigh and the great Maggie Smith during the filming. Understandable when you put one of the world's greatest actresses of all time (Smith, of course) with one whose performances seem to get worse with each subsequent film. | 0neg
|
This adaptation, like 1949's *The Heiress*, is based on the Henry James novel. *The Heiress*, starring Olivia de Havilland, remains as a well-respected piece of work, though less true to James' original story than this new remake, which retains James' original title. It is the story of a awkward, yet loving daughter (Leigh), devoted to her father (Finney) after her mother dies during childbirth. The arrogant father holds his daughter in no esteem whatsoever, and considers her, as well as all women, simpleminded. When a young man (Chaplin) of good family and little fortune comes courting, the Father is naturally suspicious, but feeling so sure that his daughter could hold no interest for any man, is convinced that the young man is a fortune hunter and forbids her to see him. Leigh is a controversial actress most either love her or hate her and she always has a particular edginess and tenseness to her style, like she's acting through gritted teeth. She's not bad in this, and she handles her role relatively deftly it's just an awkward role for any actress, making the audience want to grab the character by her shoulders and shake her until she comes to her senses. While the character garners a lot of sympathy, she's not particularly likable. The very handsome and immensely appealing Ben Chaplin (previously seen in *The Truth About Cats and Dogs*) plays his role with the exact amount of mystery required to keep the audience guessing whether he is after her fortune, or is really in love with her. Maggie Smith is one of the finest actresses alive and raises the level of the movie considerably with her portrayal of the well-meaning aunt. Finney is marvelous, of course, as the father who threatens to disinherit his daughter for her disobedience, but the daughter is willing to risk that for the man she loves. But does her ardent suitor still want her without her fortune? This is only one instance where *Washington Square* differs from *The Heiress*. Another instance is the ability to stick with it. It is a handsome movie that is as tedious as a dripping faucet, offering too little story in too long of a movie. | 0neg
|
It's interesting that a novel with no plot has become the basis for two films. While The Heiress was a good, if not entirely accurate, adaptation, Washington Square is a heavy-handed and poorly acted, except for the part of Dr Sloper, film that could have been so much better.<br /><br />The director's attempts at making 'beautiful' scenes were so obvious that I actually cringed. It has none of the understated and simple beauty that a movie with no plot can have, such as Onegin. I agree with other comments about Leigh's portrayal of Catherine as an idiot, instead of naive and shy; she made me despise her not feel for her.<br /><br />Catherine's transition from childlike trusting to adult cynicism, the whole point of the story, was internalised, just as it was in the novel. But we don't have the benefit of a narrative voice to tell us that in a film! I think someone skipped adaptation class at filmschool.<br /><br />I appreciate the director's attempts to make a moving and beautiful film out of a difficult text but it just didn't work. | 0neg
|
The potential movie extravaganza, set during the 19th century, failed to produce. With big-name actors like Maggie Smith, Albert Finney, and many others, there was no reason for the movie to fail. However, the movie lacked an ending, had a sorry excuse for a plot line, and fell to pieces with its continuity. A typical story of a rich girl and a poor boy, brought together by love and destroyed by beauty (or lack thereof) and disapproval, has a touching side of a mother's early death and an absentee father. The father, played by Finney, is a disturbed man, tormenting his daughter in life as well as death. He believes his daughter's lack of good looks would ruin his fortune by marrying beneath their social status. The actors vainly attempted to salvage what was left of the storyline. Washington Square is a black hole of ruin and destruction, wasting precious time of those who sorrowfully watch. I give this movie a 1 instead of a 0, purely for the actors' attempts. Save yourself, stay clear of Washington Square. | 0neg
|
Visually cluttered, plot less, incredibly mind-numbing rubbish. Not even close to Greenaway's better work. Avoid at all costs!<br /><br />The overlapping 'split screen' effects do nothing more than confuse, the film is very dark for a lot of the time and the 'artistic' composing of images is pretentious in the extreme.<br /><br />There is absolutely nothing to recommend about this film; even the nudity is incredibly unerotic, which seeing it fills a large part of the film soon gets very boring.<br /><br />Plus, how anyone can say that the acting of Ewen MacGregor is brilliant is beyond me. He showed more ability in the Star Wars series, and that's saying something.<br /><br />I've not been so unimpressed with a film since I saw 'Darby O'Gill and the Little People'! | 0neg
|
This film is about a Japanese woman who has an obsession with calligraphy on skin.<br /><br />The plot is absolutely bizarre. I fail to see any "sensual" or "erotic" undertones. The plot turns an ancient art form into a fetishistic pornography. In addition, the scenes that are filmed in Hong Kong are certainly portraying bad parts of Hong Kong, such as the airport in the middle of the city, poor living conditions and noise pollution. Throughout the whole film, I keep thinking that "The Pillow Book" is insulting the Japanese culture and the Hong Kong environment.<br /><br />"The Pillow Book" is a perverted, yet boring film. Seriously stay away from it. | 0neg
|
I really wanted to like The Pillow Book. Intriguing story, interesting character outlines, Ewan Macgregor in the utterly glorious altogether. Unfortunately, I hated every minute of it. Greenaway got so enamoured with presenting the movie uniquely, and not to the film's benefit. I won't even get into Vivian Wu's abysmal acting.<br /><br />You get distracted from the story with 4 billion teeny windows and calligraphy that rolls on the bottom of the screen displaying the lyrics of the music that's playing. It seems he lost sight of presenting the actual story and developing the plot, and got entangled with foo-foo embellishments that have nothing to do with anything. It's a bit like presenting a John Singer Sargeant portrait in a chintzy Hallmark frame that says "GRANDMA LOVES ME!" in big sparkly letters.<br /><br />This movie seems to be a casualty of the director auteur's ego instead of what it could have been - disturbingly and horrifyingly beautiful. In another director's hands (Jeunet? Coppola?), it could have been a masterpiece. In Greenaway's hands, it's best relegated to fine arts classes that also take themselves too seriously. | 0neg
|
I voted 3 for this movie because it looks great as does all of Greenaways output. However it was his usual mix of "art" sex and pretentious crap.I know lots of people like this film but I grew tired of it VERY quickly. It is definitely not for everyone. The ubiquitous McGregor obviously took the part for crediblity's sake I guess but he really should not have wasted his time. I hate to consign anyone to pseud's corner but please.....!!! On the plus side it IS visually very attractive and I enjoyed the music but could not see it through to the end and I cannot say that for many movies. I usually watch the whole thing but this is unbearable!! | 0neg
|
This movie was just down right bad. I love war movies and can normally come away from most movies and find something that I liked,but this was not one of them. This movie lacked substance and intensity.OK I get it, the Finns put up one hell of a fight and thats great, but the story is poorly told. You don't have any real connection with any of the characters and there's no real story line to follow. You just go from one random scene to another, nothing flows to form the story that is trying to be conveyed. If you want a war movie that will keep you riveted, and amazingly enough without battles scenes, then I would suggest "Downfall" (WWII German film). Or if you prefer a great story line and a lot of action then I would suggest "Brotherhood of War" (Korean war/Korean film). These two movies will not let you down as Winter War will. | 0neg
|
The writers probably had no experience in the army, and probably never glanced at a history book, but I still give this cheaply produced war film some credit for taking a long-needed look at the role of black soldiers in the second world war.<br /><br />The action is confused and unbelievable--any episode of Combat! has better production values, but the cast is interesting. Seeing New York Giant Rosie Greer was worth the buck I paid for this. The art direction is fifth rate--the men wear Korean War uniforms, and it was pretty lousy weather by the time the U.S. Army reached Germany in 1944, not sunny as they show here, and I don't think the terrain resembled Northern California. The script never does make clear why the black support troops are used as combat soldiers. There is a nice touch that shows some of the men carrying Springfield rifles instead of M-1s, which second rate troops probably would have been issued with.<br /><br />This basic story idea(racist southern officer commanding black troops) should have been expanded into a big budget production back then, and its not too late to try it now. You have to take this for what it is, and I admire the creators of this film for making the effort.<br /><br />I remember seeing this a while ago and thinking it was set in Italy, which would have made more sense because there were black combat troops operating there in 1944. | 0neg
|
This movie has Richard Pryor, Rosey Grier and others. It's a curious WW2 movie, and serves as a statement about racism. It is worth watching to understand the fact that Movies reflect how we feel about the issues when they are produced and not about the period of time they portray. Meaning this is a 70's movie not a 40's movie (WW2). Still, there is some good action scenes of 7 seven black men led by a white captain trying to capture a Dam. The story centers on the Captain learning that these men are soldiers and not just a service company. There is a scene that could be from a Civil War movie and not a WW2 movie that reflects what the movie is all about. The Black Lt. gives a German women a innocent peck on the cheek, and the white Capt becomes upset. I enjoyed the movie from a curiosity stand point since the stars and the Genre were interesting to me. | 0neg
|
At first glance this gives the impression that it is going to be a laughable blaxploitation flick, and it does contain moments where it veers in that direction. However, the basic story idea is much stronger than might be expected, and is a respectable effort at portraying racial issues in the World War II era Army. The recognizable cast is hit and miss, with Glynn Turman, Richard Pryor and the underused Billy Dee Williams faring best. Stephen Boyd, however, stops just short of twirling his bushy mustache in an overindulgent star turn.<br /><br />The obviously low budget leads to inconsistency in the production values. The locations are great, the effects and action are weak. Imagine if "Saving Private Ryan" had consisted of half the platoon getting killed exactly the same way Vin Diesel's Caparzo had (except we do get to see the shot because they effects can't handle it), then Hanks, Damon and Burns drove around in a jeep and shot five Germans for the climax. Yet, the denouement, with the heroic soldiers receiving no respect for their accomplishment because they are black, and Boyd's racist Captain being effected by this, is compelling, as are the sequences of of Turman's character writing in a journal of his imagined exploits if the soldiers were allowed to fight instead of digging latrines.<br /><br />In short, "Black Brigade/Carter's Army" doesn't quite succeed. But it's a respectable failure, not a bad joke. It could be remade as a very good film, and, as it stands, is an interesting effort. | 0neg
|
This movie is a waste of film stock. Do you believe that the map of a plan of a military mission would be placed on an easel on a patio in broad daylight for anyone with binoculars or a camera with a zoom lens to see? It happened in this film. Do you believe that a DEAF person would actually be enlisted in the active duty army in Europe during WWII to serve in a "Negro" unit...cooking, supply services, burial detail, etc.? It happened in this film. Do you believe that a black (and supposedly intelligent) officer would select this same DEAF K.P. to be part of an active combat mission to protect a dam from being destroyed by the Germans before the allies arrived? It happened in this film. Would you be surprised that the DEAF soldier didn't realize that a German plane was approaching from behind and would strafe and kill him? It happened in this film. Would you be surprised that a group of American soldiers hold-up in a barn at a farmhouse that the Germans happened upon would SHOUT out their emotions at the sight of the German soldiers who were just 50' away? They did it in this film, and left any possible entrances to the barn the Germans might check totally unprotected. Would you believe that, over the airwaves and in clear English, the Captain mentioned the General's rank, if not his name, as the person he was speaking with and that the general, in plain English over open airwaves, said that the dam had to be protected the next day? Maybe they should have just sent in an emissary to tell which direction the American attack would be coming from just to make it a little easier on the Germans. This so-called movie should be placed on a list of the top 50 worst films. If it were, I'm sure it would do well. Watch it at your own risk. | 0neg
|
BRIEF ENCOUNTER is a ghastly and pointless remake of the 1945 David Lean classic, which was based on Noel Coward's play "Still Life". A doctor removes a particle of grit from a woman's eye at a railway station, he is in a miserable relationship, she is happily married social worker of Italian ancestry. They meet by accident on another occasion, form an instant attraction and arrange to meet each other every Wednesday. The pair fall in love, but after spending a few afternoons together they realise that they have no realistic chance of happiness and agree to part. Coward's original one-act play concerned two ordinary people who fall in love. Sophia Loren and Richard Burton, two Super Stars and veterans of Hollywood Epics, are nobody's idea of 'ordinary people'. Loren in particular is miscast - Sophia Loren in full make-up, looking like a million dollars, working as a part-time voluntary social worker at a Citizen Advice Bureau just doesn't ring true. Burton, looking haggard, with dyed hair, too much make-up and wearing platform shoes, doesn't come across as your average General Practitioner. That said, you can't really blame them for having an affair after seeing their spouses. Burton is married to a literary critic who spends her evenings penning poisonous reviews and who treats her husband with total contempt. Loren's husband, Jack Hedley, potters around the house all day and is terminally boring: the most exciting thing he has ever done is nearly have an affair six years previous. Their final scene together will induce nausea, ("You've been a long, long way away", etc.). That great British jobbing actor, John LeMesurier, has a three minute cameo as Burton's friend, and appears to be slightly inebriated, speaking his lines in a barely audible voice. It's a sad and forgettable performance in a dismal, awful rehash of a cinema classic. Avoid at all costs. | 0neg
|
Remakes (and sequels) have been a staple of Cinema from the beginning of the media. It is pretty much a hit or miss venture though. If you take what's good of the original and build upon it and update key features too current standards, you can have a success. Note, such films like THE THIEF OF BAGDAD (1924/1940) or KING KONG (1933/2005) succeeded in their attempts. Others like KING KONG (1976) fail, miserably.<br /><br />BRIEF ENCOUNTER (1945) is the template for this film. It is as perfect as could be made on such a subject and we rate it IMDb**********Ten. The story is simple, Love, innocently found by accident and tragically lost. Why, it just happened for the two (2) principals involved at the wrong time. These are portrayed in a convincing and sensitive manner by TREVOR HOWARD and CECILIA JOHNSON. Neither are conventionally leading Star material, but quality Character Actors. For the details watch the film.<br /><br />Now what went wrong? A T.V. Movie, remade practically scene for scene with name actors RICHARD BURTON and SOPHIA LOREN should have at least scored IMDb******Six. Both actors though appear disinterested, just showing up to punch their time-clocks and pick up their checks. Neither are involved with their characters or with each other. You do not believe they are in Love or when they finally separate it is any great loss to either of them. That should not be and that's why it fails in its intent. Sometimes it is just better to leave things alone. | 0neg
|
Unremarkable and unmemorable remake of an old, celebrated English film. Although it may be overly maligned as a total disaster (which it is not), it never builds any tension and betrays its TV origins. Richard Burton sleepwalks through his role, and Sophia Loren's closed (in this movie) face doesn't display much passion, either. (**) | 0neg
|
I wanted to give Drawing Blood the benefit of the initial doubt. The opening moments, with a naked woman sprawled out and an painter, Diana, about to paint her and then sucking her blood to drain out so she can use it for her art, give the impression that this could be a kick-ass artsy-vampire flick. Turns out this initial impression turns out false. Oh, Troma, the mark of some kind of lack of quality: sometimes they'll offer up something that is trash but funny and with at least some competence to the junk-food craft (or, sometimes not). This is a case where it's not even a whole lot of fun to watch since its attempts at humor (i.e. the protagonist's father is an old vaudevillian who does Jimmy Durante impressions?) are weak at best, and any unintentional laughs are undercut by Sergio Lapel's bargain basement direction.<br /><br />And it's not without him trying, oh Lord no. He does try a lot, which is a big part of the problem. He and his producers had money for lights, sure, but the way they're used in the movie made I, a former student filmmaker and aspiring director, sulking in my seat: if I saw this in a theater I would have to blind my eyes in many instances, and would wonder whether or not his DP understood really the basic 3-point lighting set-up. While this, along with a very lackluster sound design (or just lots of random loud humming like in the art gallery scene), shouldn't be something that comes to attention during a Troma release, it should be something *basic* that a filmmaker can tackle even if the script isn't very funny or scary (and it isn't) or if Lapel does a weird mixture of songs placed at bizarre moments.<br /><br />It's not a good movie by any stretch, and perhaps if you're a vampire die-hard (or just a vampire period) it might have some appeal as a low-rent bargain basement alternative to Near Dark, or as a slight improvement over, say, 1972's Blood Freak. You have better ways to waste your time, overall. | 0neg
|
A female vampire kills young women and paints with their blood. She has an assistant who doesn't want to be a vampire, so he has to do what she orders or be turned into a blood sucker. After a few kills, the assistant gets remorse and falls in love with a homeless girl.<br /><br />What can I say about this movie ? That its pacing is over-slow, that it has some strange sound effects (never a bite sounded so strange) and ambiance (new jazz here I come) and that lights don't seem to be included on the set. It looks like an "auteur" horror movie with all the self-sufficiency inside.<br /><br />The plot is completely stupid and as you can guess, it's the female vampire who explains how to kill her even if she doesn't have to do it; of course, crosses, light, garlic and sticks don't work.<br /><br />It's not even a funny lousy movie. Perhaps with some friends and a lot of beers, it can't have its funny sides (to be honest, it's funny during 10 - 15 minutes near the end of the movie). Don't be fooled by the Troma sticker, it's one the bad movie they present. | 0neg
|
A vampire's's henchman wants to call her after falling in love with a five-dollar hooker in this extremely low-budget horror-comedy. I can't explain all the positive comments on this movie. I'll chalk it up to mass hallucination, but it's disconcerting none the less. The one redeeming factor (and this is me being extremely generous here) might be the Grandfather who's the only semi-likable character in this whole mess. Don't waste your money, or time. In fact here's a word of advice, If Troma puts it out on DVD, but does NOT make it themselves, in all likelihood it's crap.<br /><br />Troma DVD Extras:Commentary with Omar and Kirk; second commentary with cast and crew deleted scenes; bloopers; troma interactivity; radiation march; Clip from "Terror Firmer"; Theatrical trailer ;Trailers for "the Rowdy Girls", "Teenage Catgirls in Heat", "Cannible: The Musical", and "Toxic Avenger 4" <br /><br />My Grade: D | 0neg
|
This was a painful example of a cheap, boring and unoriginal show produced by Australian TV stations to fulfil local content quotas. The writing was truly terrible and I'm not surprised that the writers are those responsible for the worst Australian film in recent memory the Honerable Wally Norman.<br /><br />Nothing about this TV series was funny - ever - not even mildly amusing. It was just tired and BAD and, worst of all, it really thought it was funny. It was simply embarrassing to watch.<br /><br />There is something very suss about this show being given 10 out of 10 on IMDb. Try to find a (real) review by a (real) Australian viewer of the show (there weren't many) and it is impossible. Or crazy. There are loafs of bread that are funnier than this show. <br /><br />Avoid the show at all cost and if it does come out on DVD, remember that the laughter THAT deserves was unintentional. | 0neg
|
Of course, "Flatley" is already not exactly the ideal name for a dancer, but I think Michael is really pushing the irony envelope with this new title: "Feet of Flames" <br /><br />One really can't resist recommending Desenex Foot Spray to the retiring (and clearly, ailing) Flatley.<br /><br />I might add that, much like that cheering London crowd (per review below), I too am enthusiastic about this being his last live performance.<br /><br />"Hinting that it may be his last live performance, Flatley is cheered on by an enthusiastic London crowd." ~ Perry Seibert, All Movie Guide | 0neg
|
With a cast of stalwart British character actors and pleasing photography of 1950s Britain, I had hoped and expected to be more entertained by this film. Unfortunately I found myself glued to it for the wrong reasons - I couldn't quite believe how awful it was. I must have watched thousands of old films and am always ready to make allowances for them being products of their time, but this was really hard going.<br /><br />As others have noted, a major problem is that it doesn't seem to know what it wants to be: a gentle romantic comedy, a slapstick comedy or a musical. I was a bit gobsmacked when Jeannie Carson suddenly broke into song about 15 minutes in! It's not believable on any level, either the storyline itself or the fact that Daisy never appears to have an ounce of menace in her at any time. Other aspects which defied credibility included the casting of suave Donald Sinden as a songwriter (a songwriter for God's sake!), the fact he has Diana Dors for a fiancée and doesn't appear to have the slightest interest in her (I mean, Diana Dors! Come on!) and a ludicrous scene in a song publisher's office. The whole thing's silly in the worst possible way.<br /><br />If I had to pick a favourite scene it would be the one at the very beginning with that wonderful actor Wilfred Lawson - after that everything went downhill in a big way. | 0neg
|
A 1957 (yes, that's the correct date) J. Arthur Rank production with James Robertson Justice, Margaret Rutherford, Wilfred Hyde White; it has to be a smash comedy, right? Oh, it's just awful. It's a one gag film: watching people be shocked at the sight of a little alligator. Music is thrown in, most inappropriately and forgettably. Jeannie Carson is a lively dancer and competent singer. But what was she doing in this film? Diana Dors is here too, providing oh-so-daring shots for use in the previews. Her acting level is not bad, but she's in the film to provide someone to leer at. Well, one must do something beside groan during this film. The movie is being sold on VHS now by people on e-Bay. Spare yourself the expense and the waste of time. A comedy without a laugh. A musical without a memorable song or dance. | 0neg
|
This is a bad B movie masquerading as a mockumentary. The porn documentary filmmaker in the movie has almost as much screen time and dialog as any other character. That completely destroyed any "documentary feel" that they may have wanted to create.<br /><br />The fact that the film is not actually a mockumentary is the least of it's problems. The film is not funny. The film is not sexy. The film doesn't have anything insightful to say about the porn business. It's not even particularly salacious. While there's simulated sex, the amount of nudity is mild for an R rated film.<br /><br />Someday, someone will make a good mockumentary about the porn industry. This is not it. | 0neg
|
Half the reviews were good so i took a chance for $10. Sure Priscilla Barnes had some sex talk but it wasn't much. The whole plot later that she may be the other actress mother & the documentary maker falling for the young woman is stretching it. Its not funny its not that raunchy its not much of anything but a waste of time. Boogie Nights was based on real people that were in the adult industry this is based on nothing that ever happened in the industry. It could have shocked with whats popular today in adult films mocking todays gonzo videos and that big orgy that they had 5 minutes to shoot what a joke a bigger orgy has been done bigger & better decades ago in the early 1970s. | 0neg
|
Spinal Tap was funny because if you knew a little about heavy metal, you saw in-jokes all over the place. If you know anything about porn, this mock documentary will leave you cold. Everything in it rings false.<br /><br />Spinal Tap was funny because it took a familiar world and pushed it over the top. This film is decidedly not funny because it paints a picture of how porn is made that bears no relationship to the real world.<br /><br />The acting here is uniformly awful, but that would not matter much if the core idea of the movie were good. But it's not. | 0neg
|
Belmondo is a tough cop. He goes after a big-time drug dealer (played by Henry Silva, normally a great villain - see "Sharky's Machine"; but here he is clearly dubbed, and because of that he lacks his usual charisma). He goes to the scuzziest places of Paris and Marseilles, asks for some names, beats up some people, gets the names, goes to more scuzzy places, asks for more names, beats up more people, etc. The whole movie is punch after punch after punch. It seems that the people who made it had no other ambition than to create the French equivalent of "Dirty Harry". Belmondo, who was 50 here, does perform some good stunts at the beginning; apart from those, "Le Marginal" is a violent, episodic, trite, shallow and forgettable cop movie. (*1/2) | 0neg
|
This film is terrible. The story concerns a woman trying to find out what has happened to her sister. The film struggles with its identity, lurching from Noir/thriller to erotic, with elements of horror thrown in for good measure. The film has a very confused structure, for example with frequent use of flashbacks without tying these into the story. The plot is poorly developed, and the characterisation made it difficult to distinguish between who was who and the part they were playing. Some implausibilities exist in many films, but the scene where the main protagonist willingly accompanies a virtual stranger to his home, then agrees to go upstairs alone (to where he says she will find a phone), minus the gun she had brought with her, to call the Police, was too hard to believe. Some of the cinematography is very poor: we were watching on a 42" TV so how anyone with a smaller set could work out what was happening in the scenes taken in almost complete darkness is beyond me. Overall, a chaotic mess. | 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.