text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
i rate this movie with 3 skulls, only coz the girls knew how to scream, this could've been a better movie, if actors were better, the twins were OK, i believed they were evil, but the eldest and youngest brother, they sucked really bad, it seemed like they were reading the scripts instead of acting them.... spoiler: if they're vampire's why do they freeze the blood? vampires can't drink frozen blood, the sister in the movie says let's drink her while she is alive....but then when they're moving to another house, they take on a cooler they're frozen blood. end of spoiler<br /><br />it was a huge waste of time, and that made me mad coz i read all the reviews of how this movie was great, how many awards this movie won, and this movie was f****ing s**t!!!! | 0neg
|
Terrible acting, lame plot, stupid story and just all around terrible movie sums up this piece of junk. It was excruciating to sit through. Just awful. Do not waste one penny on this. The movie theaters should feel bad about actually putting this movie out there for people to watch. This "horror" film was not even in the least bit scary, creepy or disturbing. It was in no way visually appealing. The acting was so terrible by all of the actors that any attempt to draw you into the movie through dialog are completely destroyed within moments of the actor/actress opening their mouth. Plus the entire story, i don't know why someone would make a movie with this story AGAIN. Do not waste your time or money. Even if it's a free ticket don't waste one moment viewing this movie. You will feel dumber for watching it. | 0neg
|
I was looking forward to this ride, and was horribly disappointed.<br /><br />And I am very easily amused at roller coaster and amusement park rides.<br /><br />The roller coaster part was just okay - and that was all of about 30 seconds of a 90 second ride. <br /><br />It was visually dull and poorly executed. <br /><br />It was trying desperately to be like a mixture of the far superior Indiana Jones and Space Mountain rides and Disneyland, and failed in every aspect.<br /><br />It was not thrilling or exciting in the least. | 0neg
|
The basic plot in this movie isn't bad. A lady makes it big and comes back to her alma mater to be adored. But, despite good acting by Robert Young and Eve Arden, the movie is a mess. The blame for this I place on either Joan Crawford or the director or both, as her performance is just awful. Instead of being a real person, she does a wonderful impersonation of a deer caught in the headlights. In other words, she stares off into space and has a "golly I am SOOOO stunned" expression. After just a few minutes it really became annoying for me. Now this is certainly not the only Crawford film I dislike for her performance, as she had done more than her share of overacting--in films such as JOHNNY GUITAR or many of her later films, such as BERSERK! My advice is to try a different Crawford film--there certainly were better. | 0neg
|
Ridiculous fluff, that compounds its error by trying to have meaning. Joan, this time as a congresswoman, Agatha Reed, chairwoman of a committee dedicated to "investigating the high cost of food." Says Congresswoman Reed, "The housewife has been getting it in the neck too long. I'm going to keep fighting long enough so that the American family can take a vacation once a year, see a movie every week and feed an occasional peanut to an elephant." She's all business, but becomes all gushy when she is awarded an honorary degree from Good Hope College, where she was expelled for the crime of having stayed out all night (the parallel to Joan's real life is unmistakable here, as it is in all Joan Movies). The degree causes much consternation on campus ("That would make it the most broad-minded institution in the history of education!") but Joan is unaware of this as she arrives. The college president, Jim Merrill, played by Robert Young, at his handsomest, happens to be Joan's former teacher and lover. It was with *him* that she spent the night out, all those years ago, but Joan felt it was better to just disappear rather than try and explain to the skeptical college that they were about to be married. Naturally, this high-profile event will be covered by *Life* magazine and who does the photographer turn out to be? Yet another of Joan's old lovers this one, she hung out with in China "during the war", and he thinks Joan might be headed for trouble with her old flame. Eve Arden, playing Joan's assistant, "Woodie," is at her butchest and most smart-alecky in this movie with her flippant and unnecessary remarks that would make you dismiss her from her job, if you didn't like her so much. But you not only like Eve in this, as in all her roles, you adore her. She is so droll and no-nonsense, you'd like to pay her just to hang around and be one of the boys. When Joan cries upon arriving at her alma mater, Eve tells her it "looks fierce." But Joan says that maybe others only see a collection of buildings, she, Joan, sees youth herself at 18 "eager, expectant a little frightened, asking 'What is life? What am I?'" But, of course, if we actually go into depth about Joan at 18, the truth may be a little different. <br /><br />For me, this is the major problem in watching any Joan movie. You can call her characters whatever you want to, but it's always all Joan, all the time. So, since what we're always seeing is Joan being herself, it's easy to dispense with character's names. It's just that it gets confusing when Joan tries to tell us something patently untrue, like her description of herself at 18 when we know that at 18, Joan had already been around the block several times. Many men would have described her as eager, and as far as being expectant, she had already had several abortions at this point. But that's a personal problem, and I digress, but I simply wanted to explain why I say things such as "
and then Joan does
" this or that, or "We see Joan as..." when we are not literally watching a home movie.<br /><br />There is an unintentionally hilarious moment in which Joan is given the Clara Bow doll that she left behind in college quick arithmetic tells us that Joan and Clara were contemporaries and this is a transparent ploy to make us believe Joan is much younger than she actually looks. It fails. What also fails is an attempt at early-50s political correctness. In the story, Joan has written a book about free speech and made a film (no, not the one about the plumber), and she attracts the attention of an early 50s campus radical, Dr. Pitt, who is about to be fired for his views, which are shockingly similar to Joan's. This is where the movie mysteriously becomes a morality tale a weak one, to be sure, but perhaps the only thing that keeps it from sliding into oblivion. | 0neg
|
This film reminded me so much of "A History of Violence" which pretended to be a close study of violence and violent behavior but ended up just being nothing short of a cheap action movie masquerading as some thinking film on violence. Dustin Hoffman and his new British bride move to a small English town and encounter endless harassment from the local drunks who do nothing but hang at the pub all day and make trouble. Don't these men have a job? Anyway, Dustin takes all he can take and by the end of the film he holds up in his house and fights off each one of the drunk attackers by such gruesome means as boiling whiskey poured over someone, feet being blown off by a shotgun and someones head getting caught in a bear trap. Funny that someone would have a need for such a large bear trap in a small British town except maybe put a mans head in it.<br /><br />Sam Peckinpah who made the "Wild Bunch" which also covered the topic of blood letting violence in which no one was spared. But it was done with style, and you believed it. Straw Dogs is not believable. First of all the location is wrong and does not work. Why place it in England? I would think maybe in some inner city location or a small town in the American South in the 1930's or something. Second it is not in my view ever really explained clearly why these men are so quick to violence except maybe they got drunk and felt a need to kill Hoffman and rape his wife.<br /><br />Sam Peckinpah missed the mark on this one. | 0neg
|
My life is about saving animals. I do volunteer work with a cat rescue organization. I am a vegetarian because I couldn't kill an animal even to sustain my life. I can't even kill a spider, I put it outdoors. The scene where the children throw rocks at the bird until it dies, with Sooner participating in an attempt to be accepted by the other children, made me sick and has haunted me ever since. It simply convinces me that human beings are pathetic in their need for acceptance. The ending - the foster parents adopt Sooner - does not redeem the depiction of animal cruelty. Why would anyone want their child to see this film? | 0neg
|
You get a gift. It is exquisitely wrapped. The box it is in is hand crafted out of the finest wood and shows skill down to the smallest detail. That is then wrapped in gorgeous paper, handmade and hand-painted by the most talented of artists. The whole thing is wrapped in ribbons made from fine silk lace. It is a sight to behold.<br /><br />Then you cut the ribbon, rip off the paper, open up the box, and find...nothing. That's TOYS. You either enjoy the packaging, or forget about it.<br /><br />The film isn't without its point and purpose: War is a not a good thing. Well, isn't that original! The moral is so obvious that it is almost embarrassing to even point it out. And even that feeble insight is undercut by a story in which elements of war -- war toys in particular -- are clearly a bad thing, until they need an exciting climax and the film simulates a war using innocent toys. It's like someone preaching a stern, condescending sermon, only to end by saying "Just kidding."<br /><br />But even as an empty box, the film fails close scrutiny. Yes, it is a sight to behold with some remarkable, striking images. The sets are imaginative and the cinematography catches the colorful scenes with skill. But the images are cold and emotionally sterile. Like the screenplay, the look of the film is joyless and at times aesthetically barren and surreal. It is a film that wants to praise toys as wonderful and special things, yet shows them to be creations of a world that is empty and cold. The film strives to be funny, in a morose sort of way, but the humor is forced and artificial. Robin Williams, as the beleaguered heir to a toy manufacturing empire, tosses in his ad-lib shtick, which only seems alien to the bizarre, coldly structured world he is inhabiting. Indeed, the topical references and tasteless sexual innuendo that are scattered throughout are jarringly contradictory to the childlike fable the film is vaguely trying to be. For this film to work, or make sense, it needs to be set in its own universe, an Oz far removed from Kansas. Every time the jokes jerk us back into reality, the toyland of the film increasingly becomes an obvious sham.<br /><br />It is said that this was director Barry Levinson's pet project, one that he had been striving to get made for ten years. It is sadly obvious why he had trouble getting backing. Like most pet projects that finally get made (RADIOLAND MURDERS, RADIO FLYER & BATTLEFIELD: EARTH being great examples) it seems to be a blind spot in the filmmaker's field of vision. Perhaps Levinson directed and redirected TOYS so often in his head that he no fresh vision for it when he finally got on the soundstage. He had already perfected it to death.<br /><br />Many of the toys featured in the film are clumsy, mechanical, wind-up monstrosities. So is the film itself. | 0neg
|
Watching this movie is like eating a banquet of nothing but meringue. It initially looks great but ultimately provides NO satisfaction--none.<br /><br />The plot is a muddled mess about a toy factory and the forces of evil. So, how is it possible that with this basic plot AND Robin Williams that the movie still turns out so badly?! It's because the picture is all appearance with no substance whatsoever--much like the terrible Popeye picture Williams did at the beginning of his film career. The film must have cost a fortune but perhaps there wasn't enough money left over to hire writers who had graduated grade school.<br /><br />The film is one unfunny joke that goes on and on and on and on. I really am unsure why it was made in the first place--it certainly wasn't made to provide any sort of entertainment. | 0neg
|
Sometimes, making something strange and contemporary doesn't always work to everyone's advantage. While I will admit that the set design and concept of the film was rather interesting, the execution of these ideas into one congruent story just didn't work. This film was so hideously slow and pointless, not even Robin Williams could save this garbage. It's obvious Barry Levinson's dream fell flat on its face, but he should have warned the rest of the world about this slop. | 0neg
|
I truly despised this film when i saw it at the age of about 6 or 7 as I was a huge fan of Robin Williams and nothing he could do was bad. Until this. This complete trash ruined Robin for me for a long time. I'm only recovering recently with his funny but serious part in Fathers day but then he went on to create another mistake, Bicenntinial Man i think it was called but the point is. Robin should be getting much better jobs by now and now he has returned to performing the slime that originated with this 'classic'. | 0neg
|
"Laughter is a state of mind" says the tag, and I hesitate to comment on Barry Levinson's. What could he have been thinking during the making of "Toys"? When he watched the rushes, did he see a successful, funny fantasy? If so, then he's working on a different plane than I. This is an excruciating picture, one in which the production design is 90% of the thing (and even the cartoon colors are a disappointment). Robin Williams and (most especially) Joan Cusack are humiliated as brother and sister of a toy mogul who are bypassed as inheritors of the factory when their dad dies. There's nothing remotely funny (satirical or slapstick-wise) on display here. It is uniformly draggy, ugly, and one of the very worst "big" movies ever made. NO STARS from **** | 0neg
|
If you are planning to rent or buy this movie don't. It's the worst thing I have ever seen. I would comment on it more but It has been 10 years since I saw it and have blanked all of it from my mind. Save yourself some time money and well being and stay far far away. | 0neg
|
this is the only movie i have ever walked out on. bad acting-- bad plot-- bad casting-- bad directing-- bad cinematography-- if they had set out to make a bad picture they couldn't have done a better job. i hope they are proud of his turkey. i'm surprised anyone associated with this film was ever hired again in hollywood. don't waste your time! | 0neg
|
Bad movie. It´s too complicated for young children and too childish for grown-ups. I just saw it because I´m a Robin Williams fan and I was very disappointed.( | 0neg
|
The worst movie in the history of cinema. I don't know if it was trying to be funny or sad, poignant or droll, but the end result was unwatchable. Everyone from Key Grip, to Robin Williams, and back down to Best Boy should be ashamed to be a part of this film! | 0neg
|
I thought this was a great idea but, boy, was it poorly executed. We do get a broad sense of how complex and challenging the backstage operations of a show are, but virtually no specifics about any of it works. The producers don't seem to have found any way to tell a story or give the viewer a "through-line." (Which is not to say they didn't try, but having the stagehands relate a synopsis of the Ring cycle as the program's narrative does nothing to tell us about the job of physically mounting an opera.)<br /><br />We see lots of things happening, but are told little about what it is that the people are doing and why. There's little sense of who is who, or how the various production departments fit and work together. For instance, several times we hear about a problem of some sort -- one expects then to see the problem and its consequences and/or how it gets resolved. But instead the filmmakers generally just cut to something else (generally, pretty generic footage of people pushing stuff or talking into headsets.) <br /><br />Overall the film ends up feeling more like a pastiche of images that you'd see run under the closing credits of a show, rather than anything worth watching for its own merit. | 0neg
|
I got the DVD from the library in the expectation of getting a good idea of how things go on in the background at a major opera production. I have to say, I was very disappointed. The subject had so much potential. The sets in a Wagnerian production must, of necessity, be elaborate and impressive and the story behind their creation and use could have been an excellent educational experience. Instead, what we get it a hodgepodge of clips of people moving around big items of scenery, vaguely help together with a commentary which failed to hold my attention. I found myself listening primarily to the background clips of music from operas. I was impressed by the sheer enormity of the effort required to put on such a production - that did come across fairly well and next time I am at the opera I am sure I will remember that part if this video - but was left feeling somewhat cheated by the lack of detailed commentary and explanation. | 0neg
|
This movie is about a female rape victim/comic book writer from New York that decides to get away from all that awful big city glamor and move to a dirty, run down small town where she finds refuge in a single-wide trailer on a dirt lot in the middle of 12th and nowhere. The townspeople are mentally ill, yet so is she for inviting crazy men into her trailer. Annoying is the fact that she has the ability to do exactly the right thing to place herself in dangerous circumstance after dangerous circumstance. DB Sweeney's performance was high school at best. He's one of those kinda-cute young actors with a sweet grin. Unfortunately career has not been kind and mother nature has been right in tow. To the previous commentator stating that the acting was "so real", well I agree. Actually it wasn't acting. The two main characters really are pathetic, weak and incapable of making mature, healthy decisions. In brief, this movie sucks like no other, rent it to laugh at it. The real crime scene? The atrocious Wood paneling in the trailer - enough to make ME commit murder. And lastly, she's a artist/writer, so couldn't she afford a double-wide trailer and something other than a sun-yellow Chevy Chevette for love of god! | 0neg
|
There is an awful lot wrong with this picture, beginning with a script that is both obvious and redundant. Courtney Cox plays a comic book artist who escapes to a small desert town after being raped twice in the big city. She immediately is stalked by a local who appears quite unhinged (Craig Sheffer), and who seems to be attempting a third rate Mickey Rourke imitation. D.B. Sweeny is a local cop, who is supposedly there to protect and serve. Meanwhile, the script manipulates the audience as to who's really the good guy? Logic flies out the window after the first ten minutes and never returns, and there are more unanswered questions than there should be. If you think "Blue Desert" might be saved by the wonderful Philip Baker Hall, you will be disappointed. His part is insignificant, just like the entire movie. - MERK | 0neg
|
'Blue Desert' may have had the potential to be even a half-way plausible and more enjoyable thriller had the main character, Lisa Roberts (Courtney Cox) not been so stupid. When she is the victim of another attack on the streets of New York, comic book artist Roberts moves to a small town out West. In her first days there, she meets the suspiciously crazy Randall Atkins (Craig Sheffer, playing this part well) who will eventually not leave her side. Fearing for her safety after having been in the situation already twice before, she strikes up a friendship and relationship with the suspiciously amicable town cop, Steve Smith (D.B. Sweeny, who's character does not seem convincing enough, leaving disbelief among viewers who should otherwise be convinced of the red herrings thrown by the writers). Smith needs Roberts cooperation because, as he tells her, Atkins is an ex-con and guilty of sexual assault. But, the cops have lacked the evidence to put him away before.<br /><br />The movie had enough ploys to at least make an interesting movie because soon enough, there is such confusion as to whom Roberts should trust. However, much of the intended suspense appears too forced because Roberts character never seems to react to simple things as we think any reasonable person might. And her delayed responses allow much of that suspense to occur to easily and unconvincingly, particularly in the finale. Perhaps Sweeny was the wrong choice for this role; too baby faced in ways that kind of recall Kevin Anderson's persona evident in his character in 'Sleeping With the Enemy.' Or, if Lisa Roberts was written as a stronger character, this might suffice as well. In the meantime, the film is not all that great, even as a low-budget B-thriller. | 0neg
|
for a lot of time I was looking forward to see this movie, here in Latinamerica japanese or any oriental movies have no distribution in theaters, we can find some of those movies in some underground stores, and I just found Avalon, I was expecting something good, but the only good thing in this movie is the first scene, the rest of the movie is boring and senseless, just plain stupid, with a lot of useless scenes, and a boring story. I am wasting my time even writing about this film. Sorry but is the truth. | 0neg
|
I must say, when I read the storyline on the back of the case, It sounded really interesting, but when I started to watch the movie seemed boring at first and even more at the end. Some scenes are way too long and the story has not been worked out properly. | 0neg
|
The orange tone to everything was just yucky. Oh yeah, the main character lives in a ghetto that is all orange-tinted with orange-tinted people. Meanwhile, to mentally escape from this crushing poverty of the body, she plays a full-immersion video game (which sucks in that no rules are clear and no logic follows the gameplay). She apparently earns an income playing the game but she is revealed to not be an employee of the game company?. Lots of non-speaking pauses later the story drags on slowly. She uses a glitchy orange computer interface with an operating interface that is so visually annoying and I can only suspect a Microsoft future release.<br /><br />Meanwhile, I the viewer, ask basically why she is wasting her precious time in some moronic game when she barely has the necessities of life? Oh yeah, playing games is fun, but what is the point when you're almost starving? While she is piddling her life away playing some lousy even-more-orange-tinted lame full-immersion video game her dog runs off (probably looking for an owner who pays at least a moment of attention to it and feeds it regularly) or is stolen from the woman (while she is ignoring her lousy orange-tinted reality).<br /><br />Meanwhile she obsesses over some game her game-playing team lost the entire uninteresting movie. Yawn. So she wants to be the best of the best, go get them Ash Catchem (got to bore us all). Golly, this main character sucks as a human being as well and has no redeeming qualities aside from her physical beauty (which she could barter for some manner to escape her crushing poverty).<br /><br />So she reaches the "Real" level and it, at least, not sucks horribly and she is sent to kill a former comatose teammate mentally living in the "Real" level. Finally the sucky boring bland orange-tinted movie is no longer a tedious chore to watch, but has the potential to say something along the lines "the main character is trapped in imaginary computer-generated poverty and she is actually in the real world now". Perhaps she will do the murder deed and live in the real world now? Well, she kills the guy and he vanishes in a digital effect. Wow! Thanks idiotic director. You suck, you suck so very much, director.<br /><br />Here the director had an iota of a chance to redeem himself slightly by burying this lousy lame moronic cruddy movie with a philosophical twist.<br /><br />The director could have said, "The REAL WORLD is there and if you live in it and contribute to it to make it better, it won't be some cruddy orange-tinted poverty land." A clever way to make this suck-tacular movie a agonizingly slow lesson on basic civic pride (for the 1% of the viewers that haven't found something actually entertaining to watch at this point or are movie-masochists).<br /><br />Nope, director. The director had to screw this all up by tossing in some cruddy digital effect and ruin all chances of redemption for this awfully lousy movie which was a waste of money, a waste of time, and a waste of viewer trust.<br /><br />After that, it ends. Good riddance. I hope the director chokes on it. I'm putting this HACK on my "avoid at all costs" list for any other films his name is attached to. | 0neg
|
Even if 99,99% of people that has seen this movie is Brazilian, I'll keep up with the English since it is the language of this website.<br /><br />This movie is a piece of cr*p. Worst acting I have seen for a loooong time. The kids are terrible. Specially the boy. This was the first time I saw someone with less facial expression than Arnold Schwarzenegger, and one single voice tone, like a 5 years-old kid reading in front of the class. How can someone so bad be the main actor of a movie ? The storyline is so shallow my daughter could have done better (she is 3 yrs old). It is so simple it could be written in a napkin and told in 3 minutes.<br /><br />There are only three possibilities for someone enjoy this movie: 1) you are a pre-teen; 2) you have been so brainwashed by Globo's stupidities that you think that anything that has the Globo's seal is awesome; 3) you have a serious brain damage.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs ! A shame to the Brazilian movie scene. | 0neg
|
After Chaplin made one of his best films: Dough & Dynamite, he made one of his worst: Gentlemen Of Nerve. During this first year in films, Chaplin made about a third of all his films. Many of them were experimental in terms of ad-libbing, editing, gags, location shooting, etc. This one takes place at a racetrack where Chaplin and his friend try to get in without paying. Mabel Normand is there with her friend also, and Chaplin manages to rid himself of both his and Mabel's friends. He then woos Mabel in the grandstand with no apparent repercussions from his behavior. Lots of slapstick in here, but there is very little else to recommend this film for other then watching Chaplin develop. The print I saw was badly deteriorated, which may have affected its enjoyment. Charley Chase can be glimpsed. * of 4 stars. | 0neg
|
1914 was an amazing year for Charlie Chaplin. It was his first year in films and he appeared in more than 30 films! While most of these films weren't particularly good, they did give him a chance to slowly evolve his screen persona. However, by this film, the familiar "Little Tramp" character was still in development. Sure Charlie looked the part, but his character still lacked the sweetness and decency that he later developed. Instead, Chaplin often hit, kicked or did other nasty things to people for seemingly no reason at all.<br /><br />As for this very slight film, it is interesting to watch for the cast. While they are not familiar today, Chaplin stars along with Mabel Normand, Chester Conklin and Mack Swain--all exceptionally popular stars with Keystone Films. The problem with this film is that while it has a few nice scenes, the plot seems very vague and improperly developed. Chester and Mabel got to the race track (a very common theme in Keystone productions--it must have been located near a race track). Charlie and Mack show up and sneak in. Mack is chased by the police for doing this while Charlie slaps Chester around and steals his girl. In the end, for no apparent reason, the cops take Chester and Mack away--leaving Charlie with Mabel (who, oddly, didn't seem put off by Charlie's boorish behaviors).<br /><br />Unless you are a huge silent comedy buff or film historian, this is a very forgettable film that is only important in the evolution of Chaplin. What he and the other actors actually do on stage, while not unusual for a Keystone film, isn't particularly funny when seen today. | 0neg
|
Demer Daves,is a wonderful director when it comes to westerns and "broken arrow" remains in everybody's mind.As far as melodrama is concerned,he should leave that to knowing people like Vincente Minelli,George Cukor or the fabulous Douglas Sirk. The screenplay is so predictable that you will not be surprised once while you are watching such a tepid weepie.Natalie Wood 's character was inspired by Fannie Hurst's "imitation of life" (see Stahl and Sirk),but who could believe she's a black man's daughter anyway?Susan Kohner was more credible in "imitation of life")and Sinatra and Curtis are given so stereotyped parts that they cannot do anything with them:the poor officer,and the wealthy good-looking -and mean- sergeant.Guess whom will Natalie fall in love with?France is shown as a land of tolerance ,where interracial unions are warmly welcome.At the time(circa 1944) it was dubious,it still is for narrow-minded people you can find here there and everywhere. | 0neg
|
A lot of horror fans seem to love Scarecrows, so I won't be very popular in saying that I found it to be rather boring. The idea behind it was interesting, but it seems to drag so much. I think the main problem is that it is all set in darkness. Sometimes horror films set in darkness can work (such as Humongous), but Scarecrows is in darkness for the whole film. A lot of the time it's hard to figure out what's actually happening, and although some shots of the scarecrows were creepy, most were hard to even see. If a little more lighting had been used, perhaps it could've been better.<br /><br />There's not many films involving killer scarecrows to my knowledge, apart from Dark Night Of The Scarecrow, which is much better. I would recommend that over Scarecrows any day. | 0neg
|
I watched SCARECROWS because of the buzz surrounding it. Well, I can't imagine anyone liking this movie because it's just bad, bad, bad.<br /><br />It's obvious that whoever made this movie doesn't know a single thing about horror. The whole story is an unsuccessful marriage of two genres: action movie (guns and criminals) and horror (living scarecrows). When the criminals are killed one by one by the poky looking scarecrows, the two genres automatically cancel each other out because, first, they're criminals and who cares about criminals, and second, because they're stupid criminals to boot! Having zombie scarecrows go after them just doesn't work here. Where's the horror in that? I wanted the criminals to die horrible, painful deaths.<br /><br />But the story is so badly constructed that this marriage of genres, which could have been original if handle well, NEVER gels. We're simply left with is a bunch of super dense criminals and a bunch of scarecrows, which are "alive" for whatever flimsy reason the filmmakers thought up. Making things even worse is the fact that the cinematography is terrible (TV like) and, worse offense of all, whole bunches of the dialogue are told on CBs, and we continuously hear inane dialogue spoken over disconnected images as if we're watching some sort of Radio show. This part was really BAD. The director should have been shot on the spot for coming up with such a stupid idea! I can't tell you how annoying that was.<br /><br />As I've already mentioned, the criminals in SCARECROWS are amazingly stupid. For instance, when someone suddenly shows up, gutted and filled with money and straw (yep, straw) in his huge open wound, the others ask "What drug is he on?" after they shoot tons of bullets in him, unable to kill him (he's been "zombiefied" by the scarecrows. Don't ask...). Get a freaking clue, morons. I've never seen such stupid people in a movie. And then there's the girl. I wished one of the scarecrows had killed her quickly because she was a pain in the butt. When she finds her father nailed to a scarecrow "cross", she actually blames the criminals in an embarrassing scene (bad acting), even though the criminals couldn't have done it. What a dimwit she was! But the scarecrows are the biggest weakness in this very weak flick. They're not scary. Nothing much is explained about them. They're just a plot device in this plot device filled movie.<br /><br />Mr Wesley, filming the face of a scarecrow for 30 seconds nonstop doesn't elicit anything but sheer boredom. And that scene with the talking head in the fridge. Thanks for the laughter.<br /><br />All in all, this had to be one of the worst movies I've seen recently (and I've seen a lot of movies these days!) Between the equally woeful SILO KILLER or SCARECROWS, I'd rather watcher SILO KILLER again. Yep, SCARECROWS is that bad. | 0neg
|
Scarecrows is one of those films that, with a little more acting, a little more direction, and a lot more story logic, would have been quite compelling as a horror entry. As it stands, it is still a creepy film that has solid make-up and gore effects, and a premise that sustains the mood of terror in spite of itself. And hey, there are no teenagers getting killed one by one--just dumb adults, so that is a refreshing change of pace. And the plot line is amazingly similar to Dead Birds, with a precipitating robbery, an abandoned spooky house in the middle of nowhere, and demonic monsters. But just like Dead Birds, the adults are still witless, they run around cluelessly before getting slaughtered one by one, and they ignore the obvious danger.<br /><br />In Scarecrows, though, we never really find out the supernatural why, and that sustains the atmosphere of creepiness. And like clowns, scarecrows can be very creepy; unless they look like Ray Bolger, of course. Escaping in a hijacked plane with the pilot and his daughter, after a robbery netting millions, a para-military bunch is double-crossed by one of their own; a very nervous guy named Burt. He jumps out of the plane with the big, and heavy, box that holds the money with apparently no plans as to how to move it around once he is on the ground. Being the dumbest of the bunch, he is murdered first. But not before he happens upon the Fowler residence, nestled snuggly amid lots of really creepy-looking scarecrows, and surrounded with a wooden fence encircled with barbed-wire and lots of warnings to stay away. And the weird weathervane on the roof, with the pitchfork and pterodactyl, should have been a warning sign, too. The inside of the house is also quite foreboding (to us in the audience, anyway).<br /><br />Annoyingly, we must listen to Burt's thoughts in voice-over, as he walks around and mysteriously comes across the key to the decrepit truck in the yard. The way the key pops up would be enough to have my pants--with me in them--flying out the door. Perhaps it's just me, but I really enjoy watching people's lips move on screen, even when they are just thinking out loud. It helps to intensify the action, and gives the actor more to do than just look like what the voice-over is saying. Burt hoists the box onto the truck and makes his getaway. Sure why not? decrepit trucks always have lots of gas in them, especially with today's prices, and the battery? no problem. Now, I did mention that Burt was the dumbest of the bunch, and here is why (in addition to the above, of course). Wearing night-vision goggles to walk through the foliage and find the house, he takes them off to drive the truck away, and instead, turns on the headlights to see where he is going. Of course, the crooks still in the plane spot the headlights of his truck, and know where he is headed. Brilliant. He deserves to die. Definitely. I am not sure why he needed night vision goggles in the first place, as every scene is brightly lit, from the interior of the plane, to the night-time outside scenery, and the house. The cinematographer was either a. myopic, b. just out of school, or c. dealing with really cheap filmstock.<br /><br />Burt meets his demise when the truck dies in the middle of nowhere. Go figure. One very nice touch, and there are, I must admit, a few in the film, is the fact that when he opens the truck's lid, there is no engine. Creepy, to be sure (and insert pants comment again here). The story logic fails when dead, now-stuffed-like-a-flounder-with-money-and-straw-Burt returns to the house. The rest of the bunch are there, rough him up, then realize that he is indeed dead, and was gutted and stuffed like a flounder with money and straw. Dead Burt does manage to put up quite a fight, though, and grabs one fellow by the mouth, pushing him through a window, causing him to bite off more than he could chew in a gorylicious scene. At this point, you would think they'd would be racing out of the house and back to the plane--but noooo, they decide to stay and look for the rest of the money. In fact, the whole Burt is dead episode is treated rather matter-of-factly, although one bright bulb in the bunch does argue, "Burt was walking around dead, for chrissakes!"<br /><br />The stolen money suddenly appears on the grounds outside the house, and the crooks blithely go for the bait. Soon, another one of them, Jack, is dispatched, and again the scene is well done and horrific, involving a dull handsaw and no anethesia. Now there are three scarecrows going about wreaking mayhem, and one of them needs a hand, literally.<br /><br />When one of the crooks sees the scarecrows and Jack getting scarecrow-ized, he starts screaming, running away like hell, and shooting off his gun in typical para-military fashion. So much for all that training under pressure crap. He meets up with the others and stops in his tracks to explain why he is screaming, running away like hell, and shooting off his gun, even though the scarecrows appear to be chasing him. Again, that script logic thing... Dead and gutted, Jack returns to the house, and goes after the screamer with the usual results. If you listen to Jack's demonic growl, by the way, you may notice, depending on your age, that it is the same monster-growling sound heard often in the Lost In Space TV episodes.<br /><br />The last two survivors race away from the house and back to the plane, barely escaping. But do they? You will have to see the film to find out. | 0neg
|
Falls into the film category of "Way too ridiculous in the dialogue and execution departments to be taken seriously". Whereas Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the Thirteenth or My Boyfriend's Back know they are bad, Scarecrows doesn't. Evil Dead set such a high standard for the comedic horror on a budget genre, that Scarecrows is simply out of place. <br /><br />Suspicions of inexperience are immediately at play as there are no hints of noise or vibration in the hull and cockpit of an airborne plane. The repeated display of a picture of 3 men just screams for a story arc, but nothing comes. Although the men are obviously the scarecrows, there is no explanation.<br /><br />Knowing this film is too serious for it's own good may produce some grins. I don't recall if Joe Bob Briggs ever previewed Scarecrows, but I believe that he wouldn't stoop this low. However, with an IMDb rating of over 6, there are many people that disagree. | 0neg
|
I think scarecrows are creepy, so it's a pity this movie doesn't make more of them. <br /><br />A bunch of robbers do an emergency parachute from a plane into a enormous field with scarecrows. One of them goes missing with the loot and so the rest chase him down while being set upon by inexplicably evil scarecrows. The acting is hammy and the scarecrows unimpressive (when they move). On the positive side, the director does get some suspense out of the static scarecrows. It is as Alfred Hitchcock says, "A bomb under a table goes off, and that's surprise. We know the bomb is under the table but not when it will go off, and that's suspense." | 0neg
|
SCARECROWS seems to be a botched horror meets supernatural film. A group of thugs pull off a paramilitary-like robbery of the payroll at Camp Pendleton in California. They high-jack a cargo plane kidnapping the pilot and his daughter with demands to be flown to Mexico. Along the way one greedy robber decides to bailout with the money landing in a cornfield monitored by strange looking scarecrows. These aren't just any run-of-the-mill scarecrows...they can kill. The acting is no better than the horrible dialog. And the attempts at humor are not funny. Very low budget and shot entirely in the dark.<br /><br />The cast includes: Ted Vernon, Michael David Simms, Kristina Sanborn, B.J. Turner, Phil Zenderland and Victoria Christian. | 0neg
|
I had no real expectations going into this movie and I'm glad. Even if I had expected it to be bad I would have been disappointed.<br /><br />Where to start? First, I think 15% of the movie consisted of stock footage of stationary scarecrows in a dark jungle-field. I get it. There's scarecrows. I think the title "Scarecrows" was sufficient.<br /><br />Second, not a damn thing is ever explained regarding the scarecrows and paranormal occurrences. There's too many times where I was left going WTF?<br /><br />Third, the movie takes itself seriously. I'm all for a B-movie with buckets of blood, screaming women, and senseless violence that is the result of a simple psychopath or ancient curse. But those movies often know they're B-movies and even flaunt it, like Dead Snow (hilarious Scandanavian zombie flick) or Evil Dead 2. But this movie seems oblivious to its crapdom.<br /><br />Finally, there should of been more blood and/or nudity. Yea, I said it. If you're going to have a crap horror movie, make with the killing. And if you're going to have one hot and one semi-hot girl, one of them needs to show some side-boob at a minimum.<br /><br />So, like the summary says, skip "Scarecrows" and just poke yourself in the eye. You'll thank me. | 0neg
|
I found out about this film because Jewish Ben Chaplin from Game On was in it. Game On is a funny British sitcom and apparently he left because he wanted to break into Hollywood and star in this film. He failed thank God.<br /><br />The film is a very simple romantic comedy with Janeane Garofalo playing an ugly woman who uses her neighbour Uma Thurman to date Ben Chaplin because she thinks Ben Chaplin won't like her because she's ugly. The film is just bad for so many reasons. The plot is unbelievably predictable from the overtly slapstick bits to the serious mushy bits: ugh just that montage where all three of them are having fun and then the photograph bit. Those two scenes made me cringe! Janeane's character is sickeningly arrogant (and guessing from her role as stand-up "comedienne" and arch-feminist is in real life too). She claims that the film is "anti-feminist" when in fact it's just realistic. Men more often than not go for looks over personality. It's interesting to note her hypocrisy too. She'd been a feminist and "comedienne" for years before taking this role and then suddenly decides afterwards that the film was bad. I imagine she hated the idea and script of this film before it was released but she made sure she kept that quiet so she could get paid for this travesty of a film. I mean come on! She acted in it for Heaven's sake! What this film was really was anti-men if anything. It portrays men as stupid animals whose brains are in their groins with the men doing stupid things to attract the attention of Uma Thurman's character Noelle.<br /><br />There are other bad things about this film too like Ben Chaplin's character being the British man every American girl finds cute and Jamie Foxx being the token black best friend of Chaplin and of course Foxx had to try and mimic his accent a few times for good measure. Is that the best the script writers could come up with? Blimey they've never done that before except with every Hugh Grant and Dudley Moore film ever made. There's also a truly awful phone sex scene which is just grotesque and proves how cheap the film is. The other comments on here all say how Janeane Garofalo isn't ugly but is actually beautiful. Erm was I watching the same film as they were? She's certainly no looker and the only good thing about this film was that she was rightly cast as the ugly one. Although having said that, I fail to see the appeal of Uma Thurman as well: she's lanky and gaunt looking.<br /><br />I guarantee three things about this film if you've never watched it:<br /><br />You will know what the ending will be;<br /><br />You will find the phone sex scene painfully embarrassing and;<br /><br />You will be bored after ten minutes.<br /><br />Watch at your own peril. | 0neg
|
I liked it but then I think I might have been ironing at the same time. This reworking of Cyrano de Bergerac/Roxanne is an utterly undemanding, formulaic romcom rescued from straight-to-video ignominy on its release by the sharp turn of Janeane Garofalo. Playing the Frasier of Pets, she finds herself caught in a love trap when insecurity leads her to pass her best friend (Uma Thurman) off as herself when a caller comes a-courtin'.<br /><br />This is an interesting film in the fascinating career of Ben Chaplin. An average British actor, he gave the Hollywood treadmill a shot with this film. He is unremarkable and his anonymity in studio productions is unsurprising on the basis of it, although he has appeared in substantial cameos in both the later Terence Malick films. Uma Thurman does a ditzy turn on autopilot and Michael Lehmann packages it all together competently. Icky phone sex though. 4/10 | 0neg
|
Janeane Garofalo has been very public in her displeasure about this film, calling it, among other things, anti-feminist. She has also said on her radio show she hates making "romantic comedies" because she doesn't believe in them. I wholeheartedly agree with Janeane here. This film is a trifle at best. She does her best, but overall, it was just another boring, unbelievable "romantic comedy" that has no basis in the real world. Whereas there will be some who will say "suspend your disbelief", one grows tired of having to suspend it nearly every time you get a romantic film from Hollywood. Janeane's character, for some reason, is usually filmed in shadows and darkness, which makes her look unattractive, while Uma's character is filmed in lighter tones (which probably displeased Janeane and is probably one of the reasons she detests this film). That really hurts the film if we are to buy the premise that Janeane is supposed to be the better looking of the two. As many have said here and on other comment threads, Janeane is not ugly, but in fact, quite beautiful. I haven't read one review where someone said Uma was better looking. Having said that though, I believe that Ben Chaplin's character would more than likely stay with Uma, not Janeane. Many men don't like really intelligent women (and many women don't like really intelligent men), and sadly, Ben probably would have stayed with Uma. And despite the director's attempt to make Janeane unattractive, it doesn't work. Her natural beauty comes through anyway.<br /><br />I think a lot of Janeane's male fans who are obsessed with her like this film because they like to think of themselves in the Ben Chaplin character, and actually scoring with Janeane. Janeane is a lot more complicated than the character she plays here (real life is always much more complex than Hollywood can imagine), so take a cold shower gentlemen. This is the role that Janeane is best known for, and that's a shame, as this really isn't that good of a film. | 0neg
|
The message of this movie is "personality is more important than beauty". Jeanine Garofalo is supposed to be the "ugly duckling", but the funny thing is that she's not at all ugly (actually she's a lot more attractive than Uma Thurman, the friend who looks like a model).<br /><br />Now, would this movie work if the "ugly duckling" was really unattractive? When will Hollywood stop with this hypocrisy?<br /><br />In my opinion, despite the message that it wants to convey, this movie is simply ridiculous.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
This early B entry into the patriotic category slapped a gorgeous young Gene Tierney on the ads and posters, but you have to wait a good time before you glimpse her, riding in a Hollywoodized camel train. Previously, we've set up George Sanders and Bruce Cabot in the desert as guys who barely get along, but must rally in the face of attack. I've seen Sanders as so many enjoyable cads that it was fun to witness a rare good guy turn. However, Bruce Cabot's allure is pretty much a mystery to me - he's base and unsubtle in comparison, but I've always felt he'd just emerged, smiling, from under a car, covered in grease and a sixth grade education. Some people like 'em that way, as did Gene's gypsy queen character. This is an action adventure filler, tho, and just as we've been warned of invading locals with guns, ready to sabotage and attack the Brits in their land, there is a final gun battle in which we must lose a main character for the good of all. This feature requires nothing more than your barest attention on a Saturday afternoon, a programmer that made whatever else it was paired with better. It was almost more interesting identifying the great supporting cast and a surprise appearance by Dorothy Dandridge in one of her first roles. A two or two and a half stars out of five.-MDM | 0neg
|
This film had no huge stars in it, but did have a very good cast filled with excellent supporting actors AND Gene Tierney before she became a big star. With George Sanders, Reginald Gardner, Harry Carey, Bruce Cabot, Jospeh Calleia and Cederic Hardwicke, you'd expect more from the film than it actually delivered. Most of this, I suspect, is because of a second-rate script, as director Henry Hathaway was a competent and well-established man at the helm.<br /><br />The film is set in East Africa during WWII--just before the Americans entered the war. The Brits are trying to control their African colonies while subversive Nazi elements are trying to stir up trouble among the locals. One of the white men in the film is a double-dealer--working for the destruction of the British Empire! But, lovely Tierney, playing a sultan's daughter(!), is out to help save the day for good ol' Britain.<br /><br />American film makers have long sided with the Empire and the 1930s and 40s saw a plethora of pro-empire films. Nowadays, with changed sensibilities, the notion of seeing the happy black natives dying for Queen and country seems ridiculous--and it would be hard to root for either side! Still, in its day, this propaganda piece was effective in drumming up support for the British--though when seen today, the film suffers from a long-winded script and silly casting. The one bright moment in the film is the final showdown between George Sanders and the enemy agent. Too bad after such a potent scene the film just seemed to talk and talk--losing some of its punch. | 0neg
|
I rented this movie because I hoped it would be one the whole family would enjoy. Although the movie is family friendly, my family did not enjoy it because it gives a false view of God. If you obey God and follow Him, you are not guaranteed success. Your football team won't always win. You won't magically get better grades. Infertility isn't always cured. You won't always get a raise. Sometimes, you'll be stuck with the old car.<br /><br />God does not exist to meet our every whim. Rather, we were created to glorify Him. Sometimes we glorify Him most when things seem to be going bad for us. To live is Christ; to die is gain. | 0neg
|
As a youth pastor I heard good things about this movie. Then I watched it. The acting wasn't the best. That's forgivable. It's the message that's not: Give Jesus your life and everything will change - you'll tackle better, make amazing catches, stop fumbling, start making touchdown passes, and even make the playoffs. All because Jesus magically turns horrible undersized weaklings into All-American athletes. I laughed out loud when a coach quoted scripture to explain to the kicker why he was missing field goals. But wait, that's not all. You'll get a brand new truck, a $6000 raise, and you and your wife's struggle with infertility will suddenly end in pregnancy - twice. THEN you'll win the state championship because God helps a weakling kick the winning field goal 12 yards further than he's ever kicked before - and into the wind, no less - all because "God wanted him to make it." Then you'll win the state championship again the next year. None of this good stuff would have happened if the team hadn't chosen to follow Jesus will all their hearts.<br /><br />Here's what I took away from the movie: God can do anything he wants to do whenever he wants to do it - and it's all about making our lives better, easier, and more enjoyable. He chooses his favorite team and helps them win games. Which bible is this story based on? I'll bet Saint Stephen wished he'd known the keys to such a safe life before he was stoned to death. Someone should have made this movie before 10 of the 11 apostles were killed for following Jesus. It would have saved them all a lot of trouble. | 0neg
|
I watched this film in youth group, where my otherwise intuitive youth leader and his wife squeed over it. Then some adult couple at a church-related Christmas party misled themselves into giving a copy of this movie to every single family in attendance, and now my household is stuck with the film (though it thankfully still remains in its shrinkwrap). I cried bitter tears over these sad events, and here's why: First off: this film has good intentions, especially if you're a Christian like me. This movie is trying to show that you should put your faith in God and that it'll make your life better. Not so bad, right? Eh. It turns out a be a problem--a big one. This movie was made by a church, so of course every single issue has to be dealt with as tastefully for Christians as possible. It is all black-and-white, no gray areas. God's grace and will in this movie is a predictable thing, and it comes instantly to all those who do His bidding.<br /><br />This is not the God I know. This is not the Christian life I am familiar with. The God I believe in is a powerful and trustworthy God, but He is not one that grants my every wish. I follow Him as best I can, though the going is often hard; yet the football team in this movie finds their humility and self-control a lot easier than anyone should EVER find it. I cannot relate to cardboard cutouts who flip from bad-side to good-side in the course of a few structured movie scenes. And when I DO follow His commandments as laid out in the Bible, I certainly don't find myself showered in blessing as these characters do. The largest of my immediate rewards is knowing that I have done the right thing; everything else comes with long, messy, arduous work.<br /><br />But take the example this movie sets: Grant Taylor coaches the football team at Shiloh Christian school, which has had 6 losing seasons in a row. He may lose his job over it, and he and his wife are low on money as it is. They want a baby, but the doctor tells him he is sterile. Oh, and his car doesn't work. And the boys on his football team are disrespectful to their parents, whiny after their million losses, and bad at kicking field goals. This is sure one rundown community here.<br /><br />But wait, Grant Taylor decides he's going to trust in God for everything! And he passes on his faith to his team. So far, so good. Not for long. As they begin to obey, blessing literally POUR in on them. Suddenly the students stop disrespecting their parents; the school has a big "revival"; the team starts winning EVERY game; they even win the grand championship against the hardest team in the league! Coach Taylor's job is reassured; the school gets him a shiny new truck as a present (which, by the way, is the epitome of shallow, fair-weather employers); he gets a raise; his wife (get this) even gets pregnant from his sterile sperm! And that skinny kid manages to kick his first darn field goal right when it really matters!! Wowzers, woot, yay, praise the Lord, etcetera, etcetera!!! ...<br /><br />Yipe. Just YIPE. Nobody in my church has ever experienced Christ in a such a cut-and-dry manner. Yes, there have been miracles aplenty in my family, as well as gifts and creature comforts, and I attribute them to God's grace and lovingkindness. But God isn't some faucet tap that you turn on and off by being good or bad! He is by and large a mystery; His gifts come unexpectedly, often when you think you don't need them but you really do. It's a long, hard slog to the road of fulfillment, and things NEVER turn out the way you thought they would.<br /><br />This movie has good intentions. But because of its supreme shallowness and total escapism, it tanks tremendously to a 1/10. The bad acting and sports movie clichés seem to be mere pimples next to the leprous falsehoods that this movie inadvertently pushes.<br /><br />To all you future churches planning to make a movie: don't be afraid to show REAL life, even you have to add some inconvenient truths into the mix. However much the baser populace is wowed by this cotton candy treat, nobody has learned anything substantial from it. Give us the meat, the bones, the REAL stuff! True life applies to everyone, not just Christians, and that's one aspect "Facing the Giants" didn't manage to grasp. | 0neg
|
It's interesting how 90% of the high-vote reviews are all comprised of "*random username*" from "United States" (no state pride??) who all say more or less the exact same thing with the exact same grammatical style and all with the exact same complete lack of taste in movies. I would delve further into this suspicious trend, but alas, this is a review of the movie, and not the reviews themselves.<br /><br />Let me start by saying that I am both a Christian and a true avid movie fan. This means I have seen a great many movies, from good to bad, and can wholeheartedly claim that Facing The Giants is, in fact, NOT a good movie. It has good intentions, but fails to meet many (if any) basic standards that I associate with a quality filmgoing experience.<br /><br />The Acting: Mostly Terrible, Palatable At Best. Hearing that most were apparently volunteers does not at all surprise me.<br /><br />The Dialogue: Clumsy, cheesy, the script comes off as a long version of some cheesy skit you'd see performed in Sunday School or youth group function. The Rave Review Robots revel in the absence of "meaningless words", but the cold hard truth is that such words are a part of the real world, and the complete absence of it is palpable. Let's just say the mean ol' head coach of a team in a State Championship game would have a lot more to say than "OH NO!" when things are not going his way.<br /><br />The Plot: Mind-bogglingly predictable. It has been commented that this movie is "not a Hollywood cliché", and yet it's like it was pulled directly from Making An Underdog Sports Movie For Dummies (including the mandatory quasi-romantic subplot for the ladies) and just had a Christian-themed coat of paint slapped on it. I'm not lying or bragging when I say I had almost every major detail in both the plot and subplot pegged immediately upon their inception. Only someone who has never seen a decent sports movie in their whole life would be emotionally stirred by the story presented here.<br /><br />The Directing/Editing: It, too, was patterned almost exactly after the generic Underdog Sports Movie template. Still, acting aside, there weren't many noticeable goofs, so at least Facing The Giants was technically competent.<br /><br />The Message: Ask Jesus and He will grant all your wishes. Part of me hoped that this movie would end in the team's eventual defeat to really emphasize the whole "If we lose, we praise You" part, because in the Real World, you WILL fail at one point or another and it's good to be prepared for that. But in the world of Facing The Giants, if you fail, clearly someone either screwed up or is cheating. Another interesting question being, what if the Eagles came across another team that had gotten religion? Would they be caught in an endless loop of miraculous plays and last-minute saves, or would the universe simply have exploded? <br /><br />The Bottom Line: For the hardcore conservative Christian Parents crowd lamenting the evils of Hollywood, Facing The Giants will be another mediocre-at-best Christian film to hold up on a pedestal as the preferred model for modern film-making. For everyone else, the effects will range from boredom to a burning desire to be watching something else. And a warning: Any attempt to show this to non-Christians will lead not to conversion, but to derision. I give this two stars, one for the one scene that did not have me rolling my eyes, and another for basic technical proficiency on a low budget. | 0neg
|
I've been scolded and scorned by fellow Christians for stating my disappointment with this movie. I get hounded by statements like these: "I can't believe you didn't like it! It was made totally by Christians!" "Everyone donated their time and no one was paid for the movie! It was made by a church and not Hollywood. We should spend our money on movies like this! They only used $100,000 to make the film." "This is by a real church and Christian school in Georgia! A preacher wrote and directed it." So, apparently, the reason I should love this movie is simply because of the way it was made and the minimum amount of money used to make it and that is was made by Christians. That is all that is needed for me to love the movie.<br /><br />Look, I got the movie without knowing ANYTHING about the background of the film. I had never heard of it and had no idea - other than football - what it was about. I watched it like I watch any other movie and was disappointed. I was disappointed in the lousy editing and lame script. I was VERY disappointed on the resolution after the climax. Don't worry. There have been other cheap movies and other EXPENSIVELY made movies that have earned less respect from me. It isn't about the making of the movie. It is the end product.<br /><br />The writer acknowledges that God doesn't say "yes" to everything we pray for in the way we want, but he wanted to show by having faith, God changes our lives. That is true. However, God can change our lives and we're still infertile. God can change our lives and we don't get a raise from our job. God can change our lives and our car is still an old jalopy. God can change our lives and our house is still stinky. Why didn't he portray that in the movie? Others voiced their concern to the writer/director over the matter, but apparently, he was defensive.<br /><br />I did not think the acting was horrible nor many of the landscape shots. I like the idea of going to God and recognizing His awesome power and our weakness.<br /><br />The writing and directing were very weak. It is easy to distinguish this because many of the characters have no development. All we really get from the coach's wife is she is not pregnant (well, until the end of the movie). It seems as if there was only ball player that had the potential to have an interesting character and that was chopped to bits into "I have a cripple father and I can't play football well, but I'll kick the winning field goal even though I've never kicked a real field goal before." Another problem was the Christian school itself. Umm, I have worked for two Christian schools, went to one myself, and have had many nieces and nephews in other Christian schools. All in all, I've had some pretty close connections with about ten different ones. NONE of the problems that I have seen in ALL of these schools were addressed. I saw this as totally surreal in the movie about their school and wished they had shown the human factor. It would have been nice to see a dose of reality and how God can work.<br /><br />I will close by stating that every work - either written or drawn or played on an instrument - shares the artist's world view. The world view that was shown to me in this movie consists of "People who pray the right way win ball games, get new cars, conceive when they couldn't, get a raise, and get their house fixed - all within a short time span." I know. I should LOVE the movie simply due to the sincerity of the people who made it. I think I should love the movie because it was well done and for no other reason. | 0neg
|
I went into this movie thinking that it would be a neat football drama (in the same vein as Remember the Titans); however, I came away feeling like I had just attended a Ted Haggard sermon about the Rapture. The only thing that was missing was the request for a tithe at the end of the movie. Actually, one would probably get more out of a televangelist sermon than this poor excuse for entertainment. At least with the televangelist sermon, there are quotes from the Scripture rather than quotes from popularist self-help pulp. The plot was entirely too predictable to the point that anyone with a long-enough attention span could have laid out the entire plot within the first 15 minutes of the movie. | 0neg
|
This isn't a film, it's a 111-minute Evangelical Christian sermon draped over red state America's #1 sport, high school football. Another of the long, earnest messages to the converted who are then presumed to be fired up enough by the spirit to go abroad and convert their unsaved neighbours.<br /><br />Dialogue like "You won the big one when you accepted Christ" loses any possible camp appeal by the disturbing intensity in director/Coach Alex Kendrick's sunken black eyes. Then there are the "parables".<br /><br />Two farmers prayed for rain but only one prepared his field to receive it. Which one do you think God blessed? This rhetorical question is meant to foreshadow the miraculous climax, in the course of which Coach asks his trepidous back-up kicker, "Son, do you think God could help you make that kick?" It's the kind of entertainment we could have expected would receive faith-based funding ad infinitum, if only the Evangelical Christian Bush Administration's hegemonic pursuits around the world had convinced us all to become "devout" after their example. Behold that poor Giants coach in the apocalyptic finale, urging his team on crying "Who's with me!" while the devout Eagles on the other side were quietly going about doing the Lord's work.<br /><br />So, do you think our terrified back-up makes his kick to vanquish those self-centrist Goliaths? Well, we all know zealots can't lose. Put it this way: Transfer the playing ground to the deserts of the Middle East, replace the Christian proselytizing, and this virulent nonsense can easily be repackaged as a Taliban-vs-Superpower parable, which the devout worshippers of this garbage might want to think about a minute.<br /><br />Luckily they won't care, nor need to: like Coach tells his team of earnest empty vessels pregame, the answers are all right here in this Book. And the Christian Right will devour this on their way to their Rapture, that final victory they have prepared their fields for. | 0neg
|
Having just watched this movie, I almost feel like having wasted 2 hours of my life, but I guess there is some good in everything:<br /><br />If I was to rate this as any other movie, it can only receive 1 or 2 tops, but if I grade it like a low budget ind. movie, it may get 3 or 4. That is a movie is supposed to be 'complete' and without too long passages of boredom or waste of time. This movie isn't. But I guess a lot of independent movies are about showing movie skills, and considering this, this movie has a few highlights. If I am to comment on what the directors should take with them to their next project, I guess the distorted sound effects had some quality. They also manage to build some characters, this however takes me to what they should leave out in their next project, because the character building takes too long, since it is mostly irrelevant for the movie plot. Neither should the long spaces of time dedicated to walking around be continued in the next project - whats the point? I guess this movie tries to be a little bit of everything (building characters, suspense and a plot), and ends up being nothing (not a lot)<br /><br />This movie tries too much and too hard, and I guess it should have been cut to a short film. I could easily manage to find one hour of walking around or pointless dialogue to cut from the movie.<br /><br />There is too much irrelevant things going on in this movie. The story should have been more streamlined. I know there is supposed to be some mystery in this movie, but a slight surprise to who the killer is, doesn't make a mystery. The story behind the "mystery" receives almost no attention during the film, which leaves the final "point" as a quick an unsatisfying wrap-up. <br /><br />Therefore I would like to say this movie was a nice try, but I cant. I hope the directors learn from their mistakes, and produce a better product next time.<br /><br />If you don't have an interest in bench learning from producing low budget movies, there is no need to watch this - not even too see why everyone thinks its bad.<br /><br />As others have stated I am pretty sure the many 10's given to this movie are from people somehow involved in the movie. This movie could not receive a "10" judging from any remotely objective standpoint. | 0neg
|
THE CRIMSON RIVERS is one of the most over-directed, over-the-top, over-everything mess I've ever seen come out of France. There's nothing worse than a French production trying to out-do films made in Hollywood and CR is a perfect example of such a wannabe horror/action/buddy flick. I almost stopped it halfway through because I knew it wouldn't amount to anything but French guys trying to show-off.<br /><br />The film starts off promisingly, like some sort of expansive horror film, but it quickly shifts genres, from horror to action to x-files type to buddy flick, that in the end, CR is all of it and also none of it. It's so full of clichés that at one point I thought the whole thing was a comedy. The painful dialogue and those silent pauses, with fades outs and fades ins just at the right expositionary moments, made me groan. I thought only films made in Hollywood used this hackneyed technique.<br /><br />The chase scene, with Vincent Cassel running after the killer, is so over-directed and over-done that it's almost a thing of beauty. The climax on top of the mountain, with the stupid revelation about the killer(s) with Cassel and Reno playing "buddies" like Nolte and Murphy in 48 HRS, completely derailed what little credibility the film had by then.<br /><br />It's difficult to believe that the director of THE CRIMSON RIVERS also directed GOTHIKA, which though had its share of problems, doesn't even come close to the awfulness of this overbaked, confused film. | 0neg
|
This is a classic example of an increasing problem with films. Why is the background noise and the soundtrack dramatically louder than the dialogue? What sense does that make? This film isn't alone. Most films seem to do this now. For 2 years, I wondered if it was just something wrong with my TV, but then I got a new TV & there it is again. BACKGROUND noise that could be taking place a city block behind the actors drowns out the dialogue.<br /><br />It was even more distracting in this film because, in the English version anyway, the woman mumbles constantly. I kept hoping Jean Reno would say "Excuse me, would you speak up or get the marbles out of your mouth." If you watch it on DVD & you have even high-school French, I recommend the French version with subtitles.<br /><br />I give it 4 because Reno was so good in Leon. People rave about the scenery, but I saw it on a TV & I lived in the Rockies for a few years, so "Enh". | 0neg
|
One wonders why this picture was made at all : the plot as such is totally unbelievable if not ridiculous, the characters (experienced loner cop versus younger one, quite fascinated) quite predictable, the ending totally murky and impossible to understand (maybe after several viewings but you'd have to have a masochistic tendency for that ; the idea being you have to read the book to understand fully what it's all about)and the acting is bad. Was the basic idea to show that French film makers are able to do as well as Americans in the genre that include "Seven" and "Silence of the lambs" ? If so, it is a total failure. It was quite a success though (and has a sort of cult-status as the first French serial killer film)and, it seems, considered as a good product to export. Strange. | 0neg
|
This film was rather a disappointment. After the very slow, very intense (and quite gory) beginning the film begins to lose it. Too much plot leaves too little time for explanation, and coming out of the theater I wondered what this was all about. The characters remain shallow, the story is not convincing at all, most of it is déja vù stuff without hints of parody, and there are some very cheesy parts... Like, the young cop has to do dig up a body. Of course it's night AND it rains AND he has to do it alone... yawn! Or The Manifestation of the Evil being "nazis" plus "genetic manipulation"... Wow, that's really original. There are some nice bits, though, like the fistfight scene, mountain views and some (running) gags, but (though Reno and Vincent Cassel do what they can) that's definitely not worth it. (3 out of 10) | 0neg
|
Råzone is an awful movie! It is so simple. It seems they tried to make a movie to show the reel life. Just like Zappa did many years ago. But unfortunately Denmark lacks good young actors. Leon are by many still the little girl in "krummernes Jul", and Laura is simply not good enough to play such an important role. several times in the movie she plays with out soul and this is destroying the movie!<br /><br />Even though i consider it a movie you ought to see. I do not agree that the youth are behaving like this, but i think it can show how it can end, if you are letting your child down. Also it is important to support danish movies and new companies like "Film folket"!<br /><br />all in all I think people should see Råzone. Not because it is a great film, but because it is a movies which is dealing with important themes. I also think it is important to point out that there are some violent scenes in it, and actually it is in these scenes, Laura is acting best. - like the ending where she is holding the gun! | 0neg
|
It looks like the brilliant team of Shonda Rhimes outsourced the writing of this one somewhere offshore, maybe to the MediocreLand? "PP" reminds me any one of the many tedious, promising at first but predictable within 1 season David Kelly flicks (Picket Fences, Ally McBeal, and now Boston Legal). The crazy cases they get are so outlandish, they barely evoke sympathy or sadness. And that's what actually makes good medical dramas tick - dramatic situations you are afraid of, "This could be me" sentiment. They are not funny either.<br /><br />The actors are quite good, but the plot lines are dead and cannot be brought back to live. I'm a therapist, and let me tell you - Amy Brennan plays the most unbelievably incompetent, unethical, untrained therapist. Whoever writes her stuff flunked the ethics and the transference/counter-transference courses in Stanford. Somebody should give them a Code of Ethics to read (the episode with the nose-bleeding wife and the therapist's involvement in it). No therapists are that bad.<br /><br />Women yearning for men who have moved on - had been done to death, we've all graduated "Sex and the City". Addison in her youthful aggression towards the guy she likes - very age-inappropriate, looks so unnatural on a woman over 40, and this otherwise talented actress doesn't believe it herself and doesn't deliver it very well. The only successful/palatable developments are Addison struggling with her decision to move to LA, and the "Voodoo Dr" and his coping with widowhood.<br /><br />This concept might work with a whole new writing team. | 0neg
|
Private Practice is supposed to be a medical drama. So I guess my biggest complaint is the lack of originality in the medical story lines. Just by watching House, I "solved" two (out of nine) medical mysteries before the doctors did. Boooring. Seriously, if you are a lazy writer, why not copy some cases out of older ER episodes or some obscure Brazilian medical soap? House is recent and popular - recycling their ideas is hard to get away with...<br /><br />Second biggest complaint: these people are supposed to be forty-somethings, right? Then why do they have to behave with the emotional maturity of 15-year-olds? Is three weeks (ie. three whole damn episodes) of intense thinking really necessary to understand that if your best friend doesn't want to be your "friend with benefits", it's maybe not because he wants to hurt you, but because he doesn't want to risk your friendship? The character doing all the thinking is a psychiatrist by the way - the whole storyline is just so unrealistic that you can't really buy into the supposed "drama".<br /><br />And I won't even start complaining about what the show did to everyone's favorite Addison as we got to know her in Grey's Anatomy... On a sidenote, don't you think it's funny the way Addison ends up lusting after loser Pete (sorry, but everyone who tries to cure insomnia with Mozart's Requiem is a loser, PhD or not) and Derek ends up entangled in a relationship with whiny, irritating Meredith miles away in rainy Seattle? Apart from that little fling with Mark, they seemed to be perfect for each other. Sometimes I think Shonda Rhimes' subconscious is trying to tell us that in relationships, our first choice is often the right one... | 0neg
|
I have seen every episode of this spin off. I thought the first season was a decent effort considering the expectations of following such a success that is Grey's Anatomy. Thus i have continued to watch. I'm afraid the second season lacks the charm, the chemistry and more importantly the drama of it's predecessor Grey's Anatomy. The relationships seem contrived and the acting is so-so. The writing lacks the intelligence and comedic hints seen in GA. There are shows that a formulaic but do not feel formulaic and contrived, unfortunately PP is not so. I loved Kate Walsh's presence in GA. I'm afraid Kate Walsh's life in LA is simply not interesting. | 0neg
|
I've watched a few episodes of this show and have found certain elements of it to be rather interesting, considering medical facts that can be learned. But this is totally upstaged and wrecked by the neverending immoral relationships of the show's characters. Everybody seems to have slept with just about everyone, even during office hours, which is ridiculously unrealistic. There doesn't seem to be one solid, lasting marriage or relationship in the entire show - everyone is broken up and on the prowl - hardly a true reflection of all Americans. Indeed, there is a total lack of respect for marriage or monogamy and it's truly fulsome.<br /><br />Then we are presented with endless little moral 'dilemmas' and they're generally solved in such a way that belittles anyone who doesn't agree with the all-knowing degenerate management and staff of the private practice. For instance, in one of the latest episodes we're presented with an exceedingly rare situation of a baby who is born with an uncertain gender and Addison absolutely refuses to perform the surgery because we're supposed to let the baby decide his gender later on. Anyone who disagrees with this is portrayed as immature and stupid.<br /><br />And I think that anyone opposed to abortion would be offended by the way the show treats pro-lifers. Addison made the comment that no man was allowed to have an opinion on the issue and only one black character was given dignity for opposing abortion on moral grounds. The general feeling was that if you opposed abortion, you're a freak - hardly the popular sentiment in the US. Two of the main characters in the show nonchalantly mention that they had abortions when they were younger and had no apologies or regrets, in spite of the fact that research has shown women can undergo intense depression. What's more a young girl comes to the clinic for an abortion and then thanks the staff on the way out and someone talks about it as how they were helping this young person and it was like something to exult in. The script could have been written by Planned Parenthood.<br /><br />All in all, this is a cheap show that lacks much of a future unless it decides to present more real relationships rather than just totally unbelievable soap opera relationships and far-fetched medical situations throughout the whole show. | 0neg
|
"Private Practice" is being spun off the fairly successful and well written "Grey's Anatomy". The cast is fabulous. The premise might even work. But the writing is just terrible.<br /><br />The pre-pilot disguised as a Grey's Anatomy episode should have been my first warning. The plot was just blah. I thought maybe it was a fluke. So I set the DVR to tape the pilot and all other episodes.<br /><br />As I was watching the pilot, I just kept wondering how a show with such a cast of fine actors could put together a boring pilot. The pilot is supposed to suck people in and keep them coming back for more. There's supposed to be excitement, flash, great writing, intriguing storyline with a cliffhanger that needs to be answered throughout the rest of the season. Amazingly, this show had none of that.<br /><br />Thinking it was a fluke, I just watched the second episode hoping for the best. And although marginally better, it doesn't come close to what it needs to be interesting can't miss TV.<br /><br />I just scrubbed this show from my list of shows to watch. Not worth the effort IMO, and I would be very surprised if this show even makes it through mid season. Pass this one up folks. | 0neg
|
The complaints are valid, to me the biggest problem is that this soap opera is too aimed for women. I am okay with these night time soaps, like Grey's Anatomy, or Ugly Betty, or West Wing, because there are stories that are interesting even with the given that they will never end. However, when the idea parallels the daytime soaps aimed at just putting hunky men (Taye Diggs, Tim Daly, and Chris Lowell) into sexual tension and romps, and numerous ridiculous difficult situations in a so-called little hospital, it seems like General Hospital...or a female counterpart to Baywatch. That was what men wanted and they had it, so if this is what women want so be it, but the idea that this is a high brow show (or something men will watch) is unrealistic. | 0neg
|
I did not think this movie was worth anything bad script, bad acting except for Janine Turner, no fantasy, stupid plot, dumb-ass husband and unfair divorce settings. If you have never seen this movie before don't even bother it's not worth it at all. The only thing that was good about it was that Janine Turner, did a good job acting. Terry's husband is a stuck up smart-ass defense attorney who has won a lot of cases and even gotten guility murderers off. He think he is so smart but he is really just a nut. Her best friend has an affair with her husband and betrays her. Nice girl huh. Yeah she's a real peach, not. She's no day at the beach either. | 0neg
|
Woman with wig, who "dyes" her hair in the middle of the film (=takes of wig) presumably does not see what the audience can see from miles away:<br /><br />*** begin spoiler alert *** that her hubby is having an affair with her best girlfriend and they both try get rid of her. *** end of spoiler alert ***<br /><br />And what a spoiler that was: the title already gives it away, doesn't it? Bad acting, bad script: waste of time Oh yeah: in the end, she lives happily ever after....<br /><br />If you liked this movie, you'll really love "Cannibal women in the Avocado Jungle of Death".... | 0neg
|
Saw this movie when it first came out in the 1970's and hated, hated, hated it! Easily the most booooring movie I have ever seen in my life. Don't know where Leigh got his inspiration but this is one of those movies where you want to shake the characters to get them to open their mouths and communicate. The title says it all because there are no saving moments in this movie, just long, long silences with people unable to articulate what they are (presumably) feeling. If you want to watch something that will drive you to drink then this is the one for you. If you have nothing better to do for two hours then stick a fork in a toaster: the experience will be infinitely more pleasurable than anything you will get from this! Yes, Leigh came up with a lot of really worthwhile stuff much later in his career but give this one a miss. | 0neg
|
"Nada" was the most inadequate follow-up to "Les NOces Rouges" which,with hindsight,appears now as the last good movie of Chabrol's golden era (1967-1973) "Nada" is Chabrol's first real attempt at a wholly political movie;its previous work "les Noces Rouges" had also political elements but it was more a psychological thriller with the usual look at society in French provinces."Nada" includes terrorists,ambassador,hostage-taking,a lot of blood,not really Chabrol's field.A heterogeneous cast gives the movie the coup de grâce :only Duchaussoy,who had already played with the director ,and Maurice Garrel are up to scratch.Viviane Romance ,one of Duvivier's actresses ("la Belle Equipe" "Panique") ,is wasted as a madam (Gabrielle).Italian actors (Fabio Testi,Lou Castel)are awful.<br /><br />With "Nada" this a second period of barren inspiration for Chabrol .It would be "Violette Nozières" before he was again at the top of his game. | 0neg
|
In a time when the constitution and principals the United States were founded on are trampled underfoot by an administration desperate to distract attention from its own internal problems, where the Geneva Convention, human rights and foreign sovereignty are unapologetically discarded, a thriller about the state taking illegal action that far exceeds that of the terrorists they are countering might seem appropriate. However, if you want to see a film about that, try Ed Zwick's flawed THE SIEGE instead, because NADA is one of the most infantile 'political' thrillers ever made. Like Robert Altman's PRET-A-PORTER, the director has taken on a subject he seems completely ignorant of, and imprints his ignorance on almost every frame.<br /><br />His terrorists are a wildly unconvincing group of stereotypes - Fabio Testi dresses as if he were auditioning for MAD Magazine's 'Spy vs. Spy' strip, Michel Duchaussoy behaves like an absurd KIDS IN THE HALL send up of the sociology professor from Hell, Mariangela Melato a cardboard middle-class revolutionary wannabe - who behave at every unconvincing plot turn as if they want to be caught. The corrupt authorities fare a little better, but are still painted in unconvincingly broad strokes.<br /><br />It is possible to make a smart film about dumb people (cf ELECTION), but this is a moronic film about dumb people made by people who think they're intellectuals who are talking down to the masses. In truth, were one to recast Testi, Duchaussoy and Melato with Jim Varney, Johnny Knoxville and Shannon Tweed, the result would actually be to raise the intellectual content of the film, not lower it.<br /><br />Chabrol might just have got away with his characters and events if he took them seriously, but his staging is so inept (the fight scenes would embarrass a kindergarten class while the shooting of the kidnapping is more inept than the kidnapping itself) and his inability to get his cast to perform with at least some approximation of recognisable human behaviour so blatant that it is actually embarrassing to watch (special mention must be made here of Duchaussoy: so very good in Chabrol's QUE LA BETE MUERE, he is stunningly bad here in a performance that is so far over the top it's back again).<br /><br />Chabrol has made some fine films, but you would never guess it from this amateurish mess - a newcomer to his work would never want to see another of his films after this, which would be a great shame. Utter drivel, and a sad waste of a potentially interesting material. One star out of ten - and that's being very generous. | 0neg
|
It's obvious that all of the good reviews posted for this movie so far are from insiders who were either involved with the film or who know somebody who knows somebody and have thus seen multiple cuts. Well, I don't know anyone involved, and I've seen the final cut, and it is pure garbage. The only thing it has going for it is ambition and multiple cameos from horror legends (none on screen for terribly long). It's as if the filmmakers made this movie on a weekend during a horror convention and got actors like Tony Todd, Tom Savini, David Hess and Michael Berryman to film scenes during their coffee breaks. This is an ultra-cheap, shot-on-video wannabe X-Files with terrible acting from a cast of non-actors with more mullets than is acceptable in the 21st century. There is little or no action; it's all overly explanatory dialogue that attempts to explain a pointlessly convoluted plot. Ther computer FX are a joke, but there aren't enough of them nor enough action to make this film enjoyable in a MST3K way. After about 8 straight scenes of nothing but talking, you'll find yourself reaching for the fast-forward button...and not letting go. Absolutely worthless. | 0neg
|
I don't know where to begin. This movie feels a lot like one of those cheap Saturday morning kids shows that they used to make back in the late eighties early nineties. Sort of like Captain Power or the Power Rangers. It's full of bad digital overlays and really cheesy sounding "secret agencies" and villains.<br /><br />The acting is so bad that it's not even funny. The direction is terrible and there is little to now continuity. It seems as if someone just threw a bunch of scenes together and forgot that there was supposed to be a plot.<br /><br />Perhaps one of the most ridiculous scenes in the movie comes early on, when several villains plant an explosive device in an agents car. For some reason, even though the device is clearly stated as being "remote detonated" the bad guys decide to chase her down on their motorcycles as she drives away. This chase carries on. all the while with the bad guys doing ludicrous and completely pointless bike stunts. Standing up on the bikes, doing wheelies and so on. At one point, a crash happens and one of the attackers is thrown from his bike, we see the bike (clearly cgi) thrown over the agents car but the rider has vanished. Then, a few seconds later the rider and bike return...apparently unscathed by the crash. At this point even though the car has an explosive device planted in it, the attackers choose to shoot the agent while driving past, then blow up her car. Which was also clearly done with cgi. Sound confusing? It is, and so is the rest of the movie.<br /><br />I might point out that when I say cgi, we aren't talking about Lord Of The Rings type cgi here. We're talking the cheap cheesy Power Rangers type cgi, actually I think it would have been done better on Power Rangers.<br /><br />Why Savini and Todd did this movie I will never know, I can only assume they did for money, as a favor to someone or because they were blackmailed into it...probably the last one. | 0neg
|
I am sorry to say that this film is indeed bad. It reminds me of a c-grade porn movie with one major difference: no porn.<br /><br />The story and dialogue needs a complete overhaul. Maybe then the bad acting would not have been as noticeable. At the very least, the pacing should have been picked up.<br /><br />While I accept that this had a low budget and the director did a good job visually given what little resources he had, he should have spent more time on the story or better yet, get someone else to write it. Many of the action scenes were just pointless.<br /><br />It was a complete waste of my time. | 0neg
|
Now I don't hate cheap movies. I just don't see why you should waste any money for a movie you could shoot with your dad's camcorder. If I rent a movie, I want it to be a MOVIE, not a bunch of people thinking it would be a good idea to waste some MiniDV - Tapes.<br /><br />Maybe I hate this one so much because the guy in the video store said it was great, and it wasn't. Maybe I hate it because it's cheap, has the dumbest plot EVER, the most unrealistic characters EVER and the really, really, really WORST SHOWDOWN in the history of films EVER. Even Tom Savini can't save this.<br /><br />Seriously, this one is a complete waste of time. | 0neg
|
Absence of a GOOD PLOT, absence of decent ACTING, absence of good CINEMATOGRAPHY, absence of decent looking SPECIAL EFFECTS...need I go on? Review MAY contain SPOILERS. The actors appear to be READING their lines, and not very well at that. Most of the "actors" were acting like they were in a SECOND GRADE play. The story appeared to have been written by one of the aforementioned second graders...it's not really all that convoluted...it's just so SIMPLE and DUMB, that a person thinks they must be missing something so they think it is convoluted. Nope it's not, it's EXACTLY as SIMPLE as you think it is. I UNDERSTOOD the "film", that's how i KNOW that it STUNK! MOST of the film just had people sitting around talking(reading their lines), TRYING to look sinister. The narrator was ANNOYING. The "special effects" were LAUGHABLE. I love low budget movies. I also like Carolyn Munro, Tom Savini, Jack Scarry, and Michael Berrymore...just not in THIS movie...you can tell they weren't getting paid, or weren't getting paid much, because neither their hearts NOR their talents were in it. I LOVE Tony Todd...however, he was only adequate in this movie. In fact, Tony Todd's performance is the ONLY reason I gave it 3 stars instead of 1...and Tony was only in it for a whole TWO MINUTES (seriously)! I would suggest to fast forward the DVD to the two minute Tony Todd segment. If I had gone to the theater, and paid more than a DOLLAR to see this "film" I would have been P.O.'D and demanded my money back. Hopefully the people who made this will do better next time. | 0neg
|
I had the "privilege" of attending a special screening of 'The Absence of Light' at a horror convention in Ohio.<br /><br />First off, you know you're in trouble when the director introduces a film, saying: "Now keep in mind, we didn't have much money..." Not that no-budget films are bad, but when a filmmaker uses this as an excuse, the results are always poor. And there is no better example than this unwatchable sleep-fest. <br /><br />Actually, 'Absence of Light' marks a first in the world of underground cinema: It's the only time I've seen a dream-cast of talented genre vets actually bore me. Charismatic actors like David Hess, Tony Todd and Reggie Banister randomly enter and exit the movie and prove to be every bit as uninteresting as the amateurish no-names. Who are their characters? What are they talking about? Who cares? It's all so dull, you'll cease to care about anything or anyone.<br /><br />After thirty minutes of this endurance test, I gave up and walked out of the theater. Not surprisingly, so did most of the cast members in attendance. <br /><br />Any curious genre fans would do well to stay away from this. With a little luck, this movie won't ever see the "light" of day. | 0neg
|
The Honey, I Shrunk the Kids franchise was a huge deal and not to mention very famous. I loved Honey, I shrunk the Kids when I was little. It was an original story and had such an exciting plot! The sets were so amazing and the cast seemed like they enjoyed each other's company. Now Honey, I blew up the kid was pretty stupid, so I think they wanted to go back to the story that everyone loved.<br /><br />Basically, Adam is a little more grown up now and the mom's are going on vacation to leave their husbands with their children. But when Wayne's favorite item is threatened for the garbage, he wants to shrink it and keep it, but he and his brother get in the way. But when the wives come back after forgetting to give some meds to their son, they get caught in the machine as well, leaving the kids in the house alone!<br /><br />The plot is silly, but like I said, it was just a family film that I think some might get a kick out of. The original Honey, I Shrunk the Kids is the best, I think everyone could agree. The third one wasn't so bad, I would recommend this one at least over Honey, I Blew Up the Kid movie, it was at least a little more fun.<br /><br />4/10 | 0neg
|
If you liked the first two films, then I'm sorry to say you're not going to like this one. This is the really rubbish and unnecessary straight to video, probably TV made sequel. The still idiotic but nice scientist Wayne Szalinski (Rick Moranis) is still living with his family and he has his own company, Szalinski Inc. Unfortunately his wife wants to get rid of a statue, Wayne is so stupid he shrinks his statue and himself with his brother. Then he shrinks his wife and sister-in-law too. Now the adults have to find a way to get the kids of the house to get them bigger. Pretty much a repeat of the other two with only one or two new things, e.g. a toy car roller coaster, swimming in dip, etc. Pretty poor! | 0neg
|
Yes, talk about bad sequels. Rick Moranis stars in this awful third sequel to the once-funny-and-entertaining "Honey I Shrunk the Kids". The concept basically plays the same way as the first film, but with the adults instead of the kids being shrunk and the inner house instead of the garden as the universe to explore. If you think this sounds interesting, think again. The movie is boring at best, right down an embarrassment at worst.<br /><br />First of all, the continuity of the series has been completely flushed down the toilet. The only remaining actor of the first movie is apparently Rick Moranis. The actress playing his wife has changed, the actors playing the kids have changed, the ones playing the neighbors have changed... you name it. They try to make us believe this is the same family, but the results are puzzling to say the least.<br /><br />Second, the story is a rehash of the first one, with not one bit of originality. All the few jokes (and there's barely any) and the dangerous situations presented in the movie are just copied straight from "Honey I Shrunk the Kids".<br /><br />Third problem, the special effects. I'm sure this has been done on a smaller budget, but they are pathetic, way way worse than the ones appearing in the rest of the series. You're supposed to admire in awe these tiny figures exploring the huge domestic area, but you'll probably end up cringing most of the time.<br /><br />Fourth problem, to locate the action inside the house is just boring. Only few things happen, and when they happen, they are not thrilling at all. The first movie was amusing because the kids were dealing with nature, the grass, and the bugs that live in it. In this one, the adults (which come up as rather boring, compared to the kids) deal with dust, a cockroach and a cockroach trap. Disgusting.<br /><br />I don't know why the idea of releasing such a trite sequel to the already moribund series appealed Disney's executives, except maybe because they needed to cash in without spending five minutes thinking about something new. I'm warning you: leave this tasteless cash-in garbage where it should stay: getting dust on the shop's shelves. | 0neg
|
This straight-to-video duffer is another nail in the coffin of Rick Moranis's career. As is the Disney tradition, quality is sacrificed in the name of a quick cash-in; this is a lazy retread with Moranis accidentally shrinking himself and a few relatives so they can repeat all the best scenes from the original movie. Instantly dated visual effects and crummy dialogue abound in this cheesy lamer, which did nothing but make me pine for the days of 'The Incredible Shrinking Man', when this kind of thing was done properly. Shockingly, this is directed by top cinematographer Dean Cundey, who should either stick to the day job or pick better material next time. | 0neg
|
Inventor Wayne Szalinsky (Rick Moranis) is preparing to donate his problematic shrinking/expanding machine to the Smithsonian Institution as he and his wife Diane (Eve Gordon) get ready for a long weekend away from their son Adam (Bug Hall). Wayne's brother Gordon (Stuart Pankin), his wife Patty (Robin Bartlett), and his kids Jenny (Allison Mack) and Mitch (Jake Richardson) volunteer to look after Adam while his parents are away, but as luck would have it (and the title would lead you to expect), the grown-ups are accidentally zapped by Wayne's shrinking ray. As the kids run amok, their miniaturized folks must contend with monstrously huge insects, wrinkles in the carpet that look like canyons, and other threats to them. This was bad, like most straight to video sequels are, Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves was sort of laughable. I had to laugh at that movie "roach" Stuart Pankin and the party bullies were even more ridiculous, view at own risk! | 0neg
|
Made one year before ILSA, SHE-WOLF OF THE SS, BLACKSNAKE could have easily been called SUSAN, SHE-WOLF OF THE PLANTATION and it probably inspired the producers behind the Nazi sexploitation epics to go ahead with their more infamous films because the stories are identical: a gorgeous, horny, head strong (but stupid) blonde woman degrades and kills many people under her control, whom all hate her and want her dead. Sounds familiar? Director Russ Meyer and David Friedman, the producer behind the ILSA flicks, are good friends and they started their careers together. So, obviously, there's a connection there. Looking at BLACKSNAKE, I can't help but think that Russ Meyer wanted to move on and do something else than his typical busty women epics because XXX movies were all the rage during the mid 1970s, and Russ Meyer films, though filled with nudity and kinkiness and violence, were never even close to real porn. His films started to look positively quaint next to DEEP THROAT and other hard-core porno blockbusters. Meyer knew he couldn't compete with such films and BLACKSNAKE is sorta the end result of such a quandary in his career. He obviously wanted to branch out into different uncharted territory. But BLACKSNAKE bombed at the B.O. and Meyer quickly returned to making VIXEN type of films that, even if they still weren't pornographic, they were most definitely more over-the-top than any of his previous films.<br /><br />It's no wonder BLACKSNAKE was a B.O. failure. It's just terrible. Trash-o-rama. Jaw-droppingly bad. It's a quasi-campy take on slavery, if you can imagine that. The end result is jarring. One minute, we're in typical Meyer territory: exuberant, playful and silly, and then the next minute, super serious meditation on slavery and violence. Huh? It just doesn't work. The slavery/racism aspect is woefully mishandled and veers this movie in the true exploitation category. But BLACKSNAKE is not as sleazy as ILSA SHE WOLF OF THE SS and those kind of films, so I imagine fans of the latter were disappointed by it, which would explain the almost lack of interest in this movie from either exploitation fans or Russ Meyer fans. Meyer blames the failure of BLACKSNAKE because, and I quote, "It didn't have enough breasts in it." Well, I'm sorry Russ, but the film is just bad, breast or no breasts. But he's right though about the low breast quota. Except for Anouska and the maid, the film's cast is male. Meyer replaces his usual bevy of buxom babes with throng of hunks with massive pecs, in the form of anonymous black actors playing the slaves and the big David (Darth Vader) Prowse. And with Anouska's right hand man around, who is portrayed as a ruthless but clever gay man who enjoys the power he has over the men, one can only wonder what Meyer was really trying to create here.<br /><br />BLACKSNAKE stars David Warbeck, who is lusted after by Anouska and her right hand man. Poor David. He looks totally befuddled by the whole experience. He did seem to have fun making the movie but you can clearly see that, at times, he has no idea what's going on. And then there's Anouska Hempel. She's a beautiful woman...for the 1970s, not the 1870s. With her makeup and hair, she looks like a typical 1970s Brit pin-up babe than a turn of the century dominatrix. And her wardrobe is hilarious. At one time, she actually unzips her leather boots! I didn't know they had zippers in those days. But the character she plays is, in itself, really degrading (no pun intended). She's nothing but a cipher to the object of lust and scorn of every men (and that woman) on the island. For example, one night, when David and Anouska are getting it on, her annoying slave driver walks in the room, knocks David unconscious and tries to rape her, groping her savagely. The next day, the slave driver is still working for Anouska and the two act as if nothing had happened. It's totally ludicrous. Under any circumstance, had her character been a real person, Anouska would have whipped the slave driver senseless and kicked his butt off the island. Or even killed him. But the fact that the woman keeps him on her plantation after he tried to rape her is stretching the flimsy story and characters' credulity to the max.<br /><br />Ridiculous details like this, and the thoroughly startling blaxploitation angle makes BLACKSNAKE a strangely unpleasant but watchable movie. Watchable in the train wreck variety. I just couldn't help but watch the film for the utter baseless aspects of it all (the excellent cinematography sorta makes it easier to watch). So, this being an exploitation film, I guess it succeeded in doing what it was supposed to do. But BLACKSNAKE is mainly for Russ Meyer completists. | 0neg
|
I had to watch this film because the plot was so outrageous and the film lived up to expectations. In fact it makes for quite uncomfortable viewing at times. Unlike other Meyer films, the sexual antics are down to a minimum. Some of the scenes of violence are unnecessarily gratuitous and offensive. The plot is chaotic and some of the acting and lines are dreadful.<br /><br />The film is a strange combination of sado-masochistic fantasy combined with a window of the brutality and immorality of the slavery and fails on all counts. It's as though Meyer was trying to make up for the sexploitation/ blackploitation by having a higher moral message. Meyer knows we feel a bit guilty about getting turned on by the blatant dominatrix connotations of the early scene showing Lady Susan wielding a whip in a provocative outfit. He then tries to steer back to the righteous path by turning it into a film about the triumph of good over evil. However, because they cancel each other out, you end up with nothing.<br /><br />Because it so bad in so many ways, it is actually worth watching if you appreciate the art of making an awful film in the worst possible taste. Perhaps, because it is so bad, we almost let Meyer get away with the unacceptable. | 0neg
|
If you can make it thru "classic Meyer" titles/intro, you can wade thru anything. But would you want to? I did not find a lot there to dig my teeth into. I suppose if you go into it with low enuff expectations you will be delighted (a la Charlie's Angels.) But for my money I'd like a little something more, more visual, more moving. More. I feel like I'm begging for gruel @ the foot of the master . the mans got the goods . but he just won't share. | 0neg
|
You remember the Spice Girls movie and how bad it was (besides the songs), well their manager Simon Fuller (also this band's manager) makes the same error putting S Club (another of my favourite bands) in their own film. S Club: Tina Barrett, Jon Lee, Bradley Mcintosh, Jo O'Meara, Hannah Spearritt and Rachel Stevens (what happened to the seventh member, Paul Cattermole?) basically ask their boss for a break, they go on, and while there they see themselves on TV! Three of them swap, and vice versa, half discover they are clones made by a greedy scientist, and the other half just get themselves in trouble. Also starring Gareth Gates as a clone of himself. This film may have more of a plot than Spice Girls' film did, but besides the songs "Bring It All Back", "Don't Stop Movin'" and "Never Had A Dream Come True" this is no goo reason to see this film. Not too long after the band split for good. Adequate! | 0neg
|
Being S Club Seven, the film already boosts an ecstatic atmosphere! But seriously, Oprah has a point when claiming: "Don't go there, girl!" Spice World suddenly doesn't seem to be all that bad... I take my money elsewhere! | 0neg
|
Rachel, Jo, Hannah, Tina, Bradley and John are all on top form here. They deserve oscar nominations for their performances. I am a great fan of the tv show aswell. Their music rocks and they're all so talented! I am also a great exponent of SARCASM!!!!!!<br /><br />IF YOU'RE AN S CLUB FAN DO NOT READ THIS!!!!!<br /><br />The performances are terribly weak, the dialogue is terrible and the jokes are not even executed properly (i feel sorry for the director). The jokes are so unbelievably bad that 8 little, passionate S Club fans weren't laughing. They thought they could do it better. And they did. They conquered the world. They became S Club Juniors. Paul, "the fat, ugly one who started a mosh band" must be thanking his lucky stars that he left when he did. One of the worst movies ever made. BEWARE OF THIS MOVIE! DO NOT GO AND SEE IT! YOU WON'T LAUGH! YOU WILL CRY! 0/10 RJT | 0neg
|
Loaded with fine actors, I expected much more from "Deceiver" than was delivered. The plot is extremely contrived and manipulative. The many flashbacks only add to the confusion. Believability flies out the window and with the ending becomes unbearable and downright ridiculous. I would strongly advise anyone who likes their movie plots to be based on something that is at least possible to avoid "Deceiver" because you will be very frustrated. Maybe I am just not hip enough to get it, but my suspicion is that many others were totally confused by the story line and especially by the ending. Blurring the line between reality and lies simply does not work because the entire movie made no sense. - MERK | 0neg
|
***SPOILER ALERT***<br /><br />I love Tim Roth, I really do, and he does his best with an unbelievable role. I can see how this is a movie that might look good as a script, but it's convoluted, unlikely and ultimately silly. I saw the fake death ending coming a mile away. Rene Z. tries hard with an underwritten part, and so does Patricia Arquette. The detective whose name I can't remember (the one that's not Chris Penn) is a big sweaty over actor. See it if you're not smart enough to differentiate between a movie being so clever you can't follow it, and so confusing you can't understand it. See it if you like cheesy camera work that makes you seasick. See it if you love to watch Tim Roth work with an unwieldy script. See it if it comes on late at night for free. Otherwise, rent The Usual Suspects. | 0neg
|
OK so i am like most people, give me free tickets and i will go and see most things, now that multiplex cinemas are so good (i remember the old "flea pit" single screen cinemas and i am the healthy side of 40). In England this film was released as "Liar", it's a dog. It is a total waste of good celluloid. 4/10 for the photograpy and set only. | 0neg
|
Elvis Presley plays a "half-breed" Native American ("Indian") who has to defend his reservation from nasty business tycoons. Everyone likes to get drunk, fight, and make children. Fighting, wrestling, and "punching out" each other replace the stereotypical hand-raised expression "How"?<br /><br />Although he does have make-up on, it's obvious Elvis is healthier than he appeared in prior films; possibly, he was getting ready for his famous "comeback". It couldn't have been because this movie's script was anything to get excited about. Joan Blondell trying to seduce Elvis, and Burgess Meredith in "war paint", should be ashamed.<br /><br />The best song is "Stay Away" (actually, "Green Sleeves" with different lyrics). The most embarrassing song is Elvis' love song to the bull "Dominic". There are some surreal scenes, but it never becomes trippy enough to succeed in that genre; though, "Stay Away, Joe" might provide some laughs if you're in the right "mood".<br /><br />Otherwise, stay away. <br /><br />** Stay Away, Joe (1968) Peter Tewksbury ~ Elvis Presley, Burgess Meredith, Joan Blondell | 0neg
|
There's so many negative reviews about "Stay away, Joe" in here I just can't stay quiet any longer and let this injustice happen. Here's a side you haven't heard yet.<br /><br />Elvis Presley's movies are my guilty pleasure for a simple reason: they are perfect films for a pure relaxation because I don't have to think when I watch them. That means I don't have to worry about missing a complex plot because there never is a proper plot to start with. I can just kick off my shoes, grab a beer, sit back, switch off my brains and enjoy all the general wackiness and catchy easy-going rock n' roll tunes from the grooviest decade of them all.<br /><br />In my books "Stay away, Joe" definitely falls into the "so bad it's good"-category. Now if you're like me and appreciate "the trash value", this is the ultimate 1960's camp experience. It's so bad that it's almost surrealistic to watch and just when you think that it can't possibly get any worse it surprises you in the most imaginable ways. In the end you're so amazed by all the new levels of stupidity you just don't know whether to laugh or cry. In a nutshell: I love it because it's so damn amusing that there once was a generation that actually made films like this. I still give it 1 out of 10 though - once it hits the bottom 100 it will became an instant bad movie classic. | 0neg
|
This movie is not very good.In fact, it is the worst Elvis movie I have seen.It has very little plot,mostly partying,beer drinking and fighting. Burgess Meredith and Thomas Gomez are wasted. I don't know why they did this movie.You could say Elvis was wasted as well,he is much,much better in "Follow That Dream." | 0neg
|
It's been a looooonnnggg time since I saw this comedy, and I'd forgotten just how idiotic it is. I'd place this easily in the lower two or three of Elvis Presley's very worst movies. Presley plays Joe Whitecloud, a half-breed Indian bull rider who returns home to Arizona and the broken-down shack where his family lives, and where his friends love to party all night long. His parents are played by Burgess Meredith and Katy Jurado, and his old Indian grandpa is Thomas Gomez. None of the three offer anything of substance , comically or otherwise. The government has invested in the family's cattle, but they're lacking a bull. Elvis gets to sing just a few utterly worthless songs, and is pursued by a young boy-crazy gal and her gun-toting mother. This is just a real slapdash of a mess, and the dilapidated surroundings practically stink of manure and don't make this much easier. The one thing that puzzles me, however, is that Elvis actually seems to be having a good time in the film. Hard to believe, considering he got so upset about being stuck making so many mediocre movies. | 0neg
|
After a few lean years, 1968 was a pretty swell time for Elvis: not only did he make that celebrated "Comeback" TV Special but he also became a father and starred in two pretty decent movies as well SPEEDWAY and LIVE A LITTLE, LOVE A LITTLE. Therefore, personally I can forgive him for the misstep that was STAY AWAY, JOE which, at best, emerges as an interesting misfire and is not all that bad considering. Sure, Burgess Meredith and Joan Blondell are indeed embarrassing as, respectively, a dopey Indian father to Elvis' character and a bawdy bartender who has her eye on Mr. Presley too - but one is glad to see Elvis surrounded by top veteran Hollywood talent like Katy Jurado (as Meredith's Mexican wife), the two Jones Henry and L.Q. - and Thomas Gomez who is particularly amusing as sarcastic Chief Thundercloud who is Meredith's stubborn father still donning his old chieftain clothes in the present day! <br /><br />While there is a surprising (if not unwelcome given their usual blandness) lack of songs, there seems to be no shortage of free-for-all parties were the male Indians hit the bottle steadily while Presley practices his womanizing skills behind their backs! As can be expected, the typically 'Western' Arizona scenery is a major asset here and the sleepy, snoring bull gag is not only a good one but a major plot point. On the other hand, the climactic 'destruction of the house' episode is one we've seen too often since and doesn't work too well here... | 0neg
|
A squashy slapstick mess posing as a comedy. Elvis Presley plays an Indian bull-riding champ who leaves the rodeo for a stay at home on his folks' desert-spread in Arizona, where government suits have just invested in the family's herd of cattle (which is in dire need of a stud). What director Peter Tewksbury is in dire need of is some narrative skills, though what he lacks in assessment he makes up for in sloppy comedic montages (his social commentary isn't exactly pointed, but Tewksbury does have a satiric bend to his outlandishness and there are some funny scenes). Despite colorful supporting turns by Katy Jurado and Joan Blondell, the general wackiness gets way out of hand, and there's too much hoopin' and hollerin' to sustain much interest. As for Elvis, he's loose and frisky throughout--and while it's nice to see him having fun on-screen, one has to wonder if he had just given up on movies at this point. This shambles of a picture has a distinct what-the-hell feel to it, and though spirits are high, the returns are mostly low. *1/2 from **** | 0neg
|
OK, the portrayal of the stereotyped 'indians' in this story is just plain WRONG. I do agree that Elvis looks rather good here, but yeah, his skin color does seem to change during the movie. I was thinking, OK,...he was never THAT tan in real life. It's some of the most obvious brown 'indian' makeup that I have ever seen. It's as bad as the 'indians' on 'F-Troop' and the old Hollywood westerns who were played by Jewish and Italian American actors and not real Native Americans!<br /><br />This movie is o.k., but typically lame story and mediocre songs, like in all of Elvis' later films. He just did them because Colonel Parker had him tied down to long term movie contacts to squeeze as much money out of Elvis as possible! I keep thinking 'thank God' that Elvis stopped making movies forever not long after this movie came out. It is cool to see character actors Joan Blondell, Katy Jurado, L.Q. Jones, Henry Jones and Burgess Meredith in this movie, though.<br /><br />Burgess Meredith's 'indian' makeup is absolutely AWFUL. It's The worst of the bunch for sure. What were the filmmakers thinking? Was Mr. Meredith doing this one just for the money or what? I do love certain Elvis movies, though. For example: 'Love Me Tender', 'Jailhouse Rock', 'Viva Las Vegas'. I can even stand to watch his movie with future TV co-stars Mary Tyler Moore and Ed Asner,'Change Of Habit' in which Elvis plays an inner-city doctor.<br /><br />Oh well, at least Elvis made a FEW good films, but the mediocre and bad ones overwhelm the decent and good ones.<br /><br />I'll always love ELVIS! Thank you, Thank you very much! | 0neg
|
Without question, the worst ELVIS film ever made. The movie portrays all Indians as drunk, stupid, and lazy. Watch ELVIS's skin change color throughout the film. | 0neg
|
Some here have commented that this is the WORST Elvis movie ever made. Well, they are only partly right. For me, this IS THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE PERIOD! I have never seen anything so basely crude, and insulting, and vile, and against human nature as this film. A true embarrassment to the Motion Picture Industry, this isn't even so Bad, its good. There is no campy trashy fun to be had here like in some of Elvis' other bad movies like Clambake. This one is so rotten to sit through its painful. Pure Garbage. Native Americans should sue for their poor clichéd and stereotypical treatment here. Actually, perhaps ALL Human Beings should sue for the crime and disservice this movie does to the species as a whole 0 Stars, seriously. Grade: F | 0neg
|
As a true Elvis fan, this movie is a total embarrasment and the script is a disaster. The movie opens with the beautiful son "Stay Away" and the scenery of the Grand Canyon gives the viewer hope of something special. Elvis gets in the picture and his talent is wasted big time, especially on the rest of the featured songs. I sat through this movie twice, just to make sure it is a piece of junk!!! 1 out of 10!!! | 0neg
|
Susan Seidelman seems to have had a decent career with a few top notch credits under her belt. I'm certainly glad she bounced back from this film which seems to have its admirers. I'm not one of them.<br /><br />I've seen better acting in high school plays than I did in Smithereens. The plot such as it is involved young Susan Berman who is ambitious to make it in the world of music and is willing to do just about anything to get there. She even rejects the sincere advances of a young artist who is living out of his van off the East River played by Brad Rijn.<br /><br />Young Mr. Rijn contributes the worst performance in the film, in fact one of the worst acting jobs I've seen in a long time. No wonder he's not gone anywhere.<br /><br />I will say that Seidelman's eye for the camera is a good one in capturing the familiar East Village locations where the film was mostly shot. But her work with her live performers didn't measure up. I'm not sure she had that much raw material to work with.<br /><br />Look fast and you'll see a very young Christopher Noth before Law and Order and Sex in the City as a street hustler.<br /><br />If you like punk rock, you might sit through this for the soundtrack. I'll stick to Bing Crosby. | 0neg
|
A rating of "1" does not begin to express how dull, depressing and relentlessly bad this movie is. | 0neg
|
"Smithereens" is the kind of worthless flick which just hangs out among the cable channels taking up space like a cheesy dime novel in the public library. A worthless bit of tripe and first effort for mediocre director Seidelman, the film is fraught with bad acting, bad sound, bad camera work, and poor quality in all aspects of the film. Many better films never make it to market and why junk flicks like this one do and never seem to go away is one of life's great mysteries. (D-) | 0neg
|
The reviewer from Poland must be a feminist, for she finds "Young Catherine" to be a great film and historically accurate. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a practicing Russian historian for many, many years I took exception with YC at almost every turn, and in particular the politically correct depiction of her as the boss who single-handed moved Russia into a direction of dominance. The truth? She was only brought to St.Petersburg to be a wife and mother, and found she had to "bond" with the dvoriane, the boyars, and the military just to survive. So long as she did not challenge them she was able/ permitted to indulge her cultural wishes (filling up the Hermitage with art treasures, etc.). There are so many proofs that she was not "great," but in this area of post-modern revisionism proof is not very popular. YC is only a costume drama, a bit of fluff from Ted Turner that, like "Peter the Great" in 1986, is one more example of how badly Russia is portrayed in the West. | 0neg
|
Vovochka is your everyday hooligan vs authority movie. Vovochka, the main character, is branded early as a bad influence on the children in the neighborhood. With the words of wisdom from a couple of grownups he meets along the way, he finds changing his mischievous ways hard, yet worthy of doing. Personally, I found actor who played Vovochka too annoying to sympathize with, however the change of tone of the movie would allow most to feel the emotional struggle Vovochka has when he wants to be good but bad things still happen. This struggle makes the movie a little different than other movies of the same genre, that's the little flavor I meant. All in all, I did not really care for this movie, although it was most likely aimed for a younger audience. | 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.