text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
I can't believe that in the 34 prior comments, nobody mentioned that this film is a blatant rip-off of Born Yesterday. A man is hired to bring an ostensibly dumb blonde up to the requirements of a gangster. Hired gun and blonde fall in love and live happily ever after. Gangster is left in the lurch. But Born Yesterday was an intelligent treatment whereas this is just so much fluff. Technicolor transfer to DVD is deplorable. Natalie Kalmus would be rolling over in her grave. Check out the paperboy. Recognize him? But, it's historically interesting to see the roots of Rock 'n Roll. Also interesting is Ewell's introduction to CinemaScope, a new format at the time. | 0neg
|
There are two kinds of 1950s musicals. First you have the glossy MGM productions with big names and great music. And then you have the minor league with a less famous cast, less famous music and second rate directors. 'The Girl Can't Help It' belongs to the latter category. Neither Tom Ewell or Edmond O'Brien became famous and Jayne Mansfield was famous for her... well, never mind. Seems like every decade has its share of Bo Dereks or Pamela Andersons. The plot itself is thin as a razorblade and one can't help suspect that it is mostly an attempt to sell records for Fats Domino, Little Richard or others of the 1950s rock acts that appear in the movie. If that music appeals to you this is worth watching. If not, don't bother. | 0neg
|
A singularly unfunny musical comedy that artificially tries to marry the then-cutting edge rock 'n' roll explosion with the middle-class sensibilities of a suburban sitcom. The result is a jarringly dated mish-mash that will satisfy none of the audience that went for the music, but will at least keep their parents sated.<br /><br />A quick glance at the promo write-up on the back of the video release should give some idea of the content. Tom Ewell is a drunken agent, overplayed with so little comic ability you almost expect him to bellow "hi honey, I'm home!" The blurb sites him as "So funny in 'The 7 Year Itch'". It sounds almost like an excuse. What other film would sell itself on the fact that a leading player was good in something else? It reads like "So funny in 'The 7 Year Itch' ... but he's rubbish in this".<br /><br />Mansfield, a beautiful girl with rumoured 50-inch assets, is, unfortunately, a bargain basement Monroe with all the acting ability and comic timing of a rotting haddock. Her wooden delivery combined with Ewell's OTT double-takes make this a comedy partnership from Hell. For her part, the sell gives us: "[Jayne Mansfield] whose more obvious talents are the cause of many of the film's biggest laughs!" As you can see, a movie sold on the idea that it's lead has a big chest is not the most sophisticated of things. Most of this "humour" is men literally falling over themselves, their glasses cracking upon site of Mansfield, etc. Only the Freudian nightmare of a milk bottle overflowing casts doubt upon its "U" certificate.<br /><br />For the musical side, the most adenine of players are chosen. Would you really care to see Eddie Fontaine offer: "I love your eyes, I love your lips, they taste even better than potato chips" in a song called "Cool It, Baby"? Only the incendiary Little Richard breaks out of the MOR, though is forced to sing some of his more dad-friendly songs in a four-minute sequence. And how come all the acts sing without a single microphone? Attempted satires on the industry are broad and childlike in their conception.<br /><br />Technically, the picture was quite advanced, with special effects (including a ghost-like Julie London) and deluxe color (Which now looks flat and artificial. In fact, with its reds that bleed and fake-looking flesh tones, it resembles a colorised movie). Direction, though, isn't outstanding, and the sound quality is also quite poor.<br /><br />Perhaps it comes down to it being so old. A time when men still smoked on screen, sickeningly cute child actors made adult remarks and black servants only got to cook and dance. (All of which happen here). Yet Some Like It Hot, The African Queen, Ben Hur and many, many more stand as examples of films from the period that can still be enjoyed today, so the "good at the time" argument doesn't really stand up. At its heart The Girl Can't Help It is a cynical and patronising venture that doesn't bear close inspection. 4/10.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
This is a dry and sterile feature filming on one of most interesting events in WWII and in history of warfare behind the front line. Bad drama composition is worst about this film as plot on killing Hitler suppose to be pretty dramatic event. There is no character development at all and idea that Tom Cruise suppose to play a high rank commander that questions his deepest inner thoughts on patriotism and treason is completely insane. I believe that Mister Bin would play it better. Generally speaking, film pretty much looks as a cheep copy of good German TV movie "Stauffenberg" from 2004, but can't get close to that film regarding any movie aspect whatsoever. However, movie obviously gets its financial goal with pop-corn audience that cherishes Hollywood fast-mood blood and shallow art values. | 0neg
|
Recipe for one of the worst movies of all time: a she-male villain who looks like it escaped from the WWF, has terrible aim with a gun that has inconsistent effects (the first guy she shoots catches on fire but when she shoots anyone else they just disappear) and takes time out to pet a deer. Then you got the unlikable characters, 30 year old college students, a lame attempt at a surprise ending and lots, lots more. Avoid at all costs. | 0neg
|
Well, I had to be generous and give this a 2. This was mainly due to the gratuitous holes cut in that lady's shirt where her breasts are. I found that mildly amusing. Other than that, this movie does nothing more than provide a few good laughs with a friend. Funny if you're willing to throw "mystery science theatre" comments at it with someone, but it ain't no better than a 2. And a 2 pretty much sucks. | 0neg
|
For the initial 20 minutes or so (I was watching it on a PS2 so I've really no idea how long it took) Alienator sets up an interesting premise. I don't think I've seen a slasher movie with an alien from another planet as the baddie before. However, interest soon turns into stunned disbelief as you realise the 'alien' is a huge body-builder woman in a steel bikini. Yes, Alienator is patently ridiculous.<br /><br />Don't think I hold that against it. In the world of shlock-horror, patently ridiculous can often be a good sign. However, the blatant stupidity of its premise is all the movie really has going for it. Alienator is funny as hell, but it is also a shambolic suckfest of the highest order. Actors heap on failed attempts at seriousness, potentially genius lines of pure cheese dialogue are stumbled over with unnerving incompetence and the direction fails to sum up even one or two decent set-pieces. By the time the movie's finished you can barely see the original concept through the haystack of total tripe the team piled on it.<br /><br />Add to this the fact that the 'Alien' just kills people by vaporising them, as opposed to doing any 'slashing' as such and you have a giant throbbing heap of good ideas being left to rot. You'll laugh at Alienator, but AT it, not with it. If that's your thing then go ahead and check it out. | 0neg
|
Throw this lame dog a bone. Sooo bad...you may watch anyway. Kol(Ross Hagen)is an intergalactic bad guy that escapes being vaporised by an over zealous spaceship commander(Jan-Michael Vincent). Kol manages to steal a shuttle that crash lands on Earth. An unstoppable android killer is sent to bring back the villain dead or alive. John Phillip Law plays a forest/park ranger that urges caution in dealing with these two visitors from far, far away. Costumes are outrageous and the script is lacking intelligence. Vincent surely took the money and ran. Law shows the only sign of effort.So bad it is almost comical. Also in the cast: Dyana Ortelli, P.J. Soles and Dawn Wildsmith. | 0neg
|
Kol, space prisoner on space death row, manages to hijack a space shuttle and escape to the woods of America where he, along with some new found friend try to escape from the 'Alienator" a female cyborg killing machine. Made one year after the best movie of Fred Olen Ray's career, "Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers", this one can't help but feel like a bit of a letdown. Just as low-budget as that earlier film, but not nearly as fun as I had with it. None of the actors really stood out at me. The film is alright for the undiscriminating viewer during a rainy Saturday afternoon, but that's pretty much all it's good for.<br /><br />My Grade: D+ <br /><br />Where i saw it: Showtime Thriller | 0neg
|
Music that grinds on the nerves like fingernails on a blackboard, acting that is so zombielike it was a shame to waste the cast by not making a second movie; casting everyone in it as true zombies---with the cast of Sabrina the Teenaged Witch as the heroes... a movie so downright awful that if "stoners" were still around it might be considered a cult movie---but, oh so amateurish, the scripts might as well have been carried around by the actors, their lines read as they slowly shuffled through the movie---banal, illogical sets modeled after LA subdivisions, props straight from ToysRus! Was a movie ever made that is so completely and totally inept??? Logic flies to the wind in this plodding, senseless, pointless and with a "monster" so stupid and uncoordinated that it couldn't catch a turtle in an icebox---lowcut, leggy---and amazon! It kept my attention all the way through; the way a terrible, ongoing chain accident in the fog involving multiple vehicles keeps one watching to the very end... as, after a ridiculous ray-gun fight in a prison on another planet, a pneumaticaly-disadvantaged sexy and mentally unbalanced bounty hunter chases a retarded extra-terrestrial fugitive---TO EARTH! Don't let anybody p**s on your popcorn, you might actually enjoy watching this one. It's that bad! | 0neg
|
Intergalactic criminal Kol (Ross Hagen) has been sentenced to death and awaits execution on a spaceship designed for just such a purpose. But tonight there's going to be a jailbreak, and Kol flees on a conveniently-placed escape pod and flies towards Earth (which apparently is nearby). There he confronts a group of "teenagers" (who look thirty) and a game warden (John Phillip Law), who help protect him from his worst nightmare... the bounty hunter and executioner android (or more properly "gynoid") the Alienator.<br /><br />From the cover of the box, I was confident this was going to be an awful movie. But, as awful as it turned out to be, it was a ton of fun as well (probably at least partially because I was watching it with someone who happens to be intensely awesome). The director (Fred Olen Ray), who has specialized in making over one hundred low-grade films (most notably "Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers"), does what he does best and throws together a plot that only half makes sense and gives us rudimentary special effects. Bonus: P.J. Soles appears (as "Tara"), obviously at a low point in her career.<br /><br />Sure, there's plot holes. Why are there hillbilly rednecks in California (allegedly Los Angeles County if I understood the warden correctly). What's up with the space woman's tacky blouse? Why is there a subplot about the ship captain forcefully trying to win her heart when this story goes nowhere? What the heck is "Quadrant 5"? How does chicken wire create an electromagnetic field that will short-circuit an android, yet land mines do virtually nothing? Why does Kol look like a drunk, Native American football player with emphysema? And the Lund guy (Robert Clarke)... does his character even have a point? Does the game he plays with the captain have a point? Does this movie have a point? But the biggest mystery is the android (or gynoid) the Alienator, played by Teagan Clive. What is an "alienator"? Why does it look like Daryl Hannah from "Blade Runner", only much larger? Because, see, if something is a cyborg, it's part human. But if it's an android, it's all machine. This was an android, so there was no reason to make it look human. It could have looked like anything. Yet, the person who designed her made her the size of a linebacker, with David Bowie's hair and a leotard that shows me just a little too much. If you're going to make a female android, wouldn't the purpose be to have her be seductive and lure enemies in? Mission not accomplished. They say beauty comes in all shapes and sizes, but I think I found a huge exception.<br /><br />If "Mystery Science Theater 3000" were still around today, this film would be on a very short list of movies that need to get harangued.<br /><br />Beyond the butt-nasty Alienator (sorry, Teagan, female weight lifters are gross) the film is alright. Maybe there's not much of a story and maybe the characters aren't really very interesting. And maybe the scene with the deer is incredibly adorable for no particular reason -- what use does a killer robot have with a deer? But overall, I actually liked the movie. I won't be pimping it out to my friends or running out to my local video store to pick up the latest DVD copy (which I'm sure is just packed with amazing special features -- not). But I consider seeing this movie time well spent and look forward to similar adventures in the future. | 0neg
|
Typically terrible trash from director Fred Olen Ray about a female cyborg hunter(Teagan)commissioned by Warden Jan-Michael Vincent to find and execute escaped alien convict Ross Hagen who has charted course for earth. Soon Forest Ranger John Phillip Law will have to protect a group of obnoxiously hammy college kids headed by the grating Richard Wiley who ran over Hagen with his RV on a camping trip gone awry. Soon the cyborg will be blasting away with her arm laser burning one innocent alcoholic Doctor(Robert Quarry of Count Yorga-Vampire fame)proving that no one will stand in it's way of retrieving the hide of the convict, whose collar is a tracking device that weakens his body. Law finds an ally in Leo Gordon, an old Vietnam war vet with way too weapons stashed in his cabin.<br /><br />Perhaps intentionally made awful, this features what fans of "rancid cinema" yearn for..dreadful special effects, acting, and premise. At least, the film has PJ Soles for some eye candy..even in '89, she was quite smokin'. That laser gun sure is funny..it can incinerate some houses yet when the Cyborg shoots at Law it barely leaves a mark on the location fired. | 0neg
|
This is almost the worst film you will ever see! 2012 Doomsday currently pulls the rug from under this one, for me. The props are a perfect example of what Frank Zappa once referred to as 'cheepnis.' It looks as if the space scenes were made in a 1950s power station, just prior to demolition. The music really sucks. The acting is wooden and ham. The characters they portray are shallow and unconvincing. The plot is predictable. It is immediately and brazenly obvious when they copy techniques and ideas from other films. The quality of direction beggars belief.<br /><br />But you have to see it, if only to experience what has to be one of the biggest wastes of a tiny budget ever. This is a priceless example of a stupid movie! | 0neg
|
I don't what that other review was talking about. This definitely isn't a bimbo movie, in fact, I don't think there was one decent looking girl in it. No, it's just cheesy, poorly-done, Ed Wood-style science fiction schlock. And it's bad. I can't even begin to tell you how bad it is. I saw it late at night on cable, and I was in shock. The fact that this movie was ever released is an insult to us all. The actors were either friends of the producer or mentally retarded, the special effects are a joke, and the pace is insanely slow. To me though, the music tops it all. A monkey could write a better theme with a toy xylophone. Do not rent this thing, but if you ever see it on cable, watch it. You'll be amazed at how bad a movie can be. | 0neg
|
I saw the movie late one night on cable and could not believe how bad it was. I usually enjoy bad movies, but this one was so revolting that it wasn't even entertaining. Some of the highlights of this film include the absurd music which is constantly playing throughout the movie, the hideous special effects (when someone is shot with a laser gun they turn neon green and promptly disintegrate), and the disgusting acting. The acting, in fact, is what I feel steals the show. I didn't recognize any of the actors in the movie, and I hope that I never have to see any of them again. Overall, I recommend renting this movie (if you can find it; I can't imagine a video store carrying this garbage) just so that you can learn to appreciate quality films after seeing this trash. | 0neg
|
Nothing can prepare you for another lousy bimbo outing! This time, it's being brought to you by the never-inevitable Fred Olen Ray! As far as exploitation movies go, this one doesn't click! As science fiction, it's plain unoriginal! All that we see is an an ugly feminine android wearing a bikini out to destroy the Earth, and showing off all that's nearly bare to resist! Give me a f---ing break!!! If this kind of entertainment is your thing, then why not dust off those old SI swimsuit mags from the attic for a change?! This would have been much better if it didn't set the sleaze factor on very high, but that still wouldn't make this one great. I'd like to point out another film called THE ASSAULT (1996) by Jim Wynorski, which resembles the identity of ALIENATOR. It illustrates why top-notch 1st-person "femme fatale" action movies don't translate well in America. Sorry, fellas! | 0neg
|
What happened? 'Doubt' had so much potential to be a brilliant film - but instead it faltered with a dragging simplistic plot line which made me want to stop watching. The only thing the film had going for it was the brilliance of Meryl Streep, who no DOUBT deserved the Oscar-nomination. Though it was not one of her best performances, she still gave a solid and truthful character to us which blossomed through the screen.<br /><br />However, not even the brilliance of a screen legend could save this film from going down hill. From the boring start, which had no power or punch - to the less than convincing ending, the film was truly a disappointment - especially since it provided so much potential through its promotion and trailers. It was obvious the director had trouble with the simplicity of the plot and he ended up with a boring film, which dragged on for too long, with too much talk and not enough action.<br /><br />Furthermore, the other Oscar-nominations were less than convincing. Though Philip Seymour Hoffman gave a decent performance, it was by no means Oscar-worthy. (Especially since they completely left out performances such as Will Smith, in Seven Pounds). Amy Adams did not deserve the nomination. Watching Amy Adams was like watching a cardboard box - as it was one sided and plain. It would have made more sense to nominate her for a Razzie, as I am sure she would have walked away victorious. Viola Davis gave a short but truthful performance, but the length of her performance made me question whether the academy really should have given her the nomination.<br /><br />Overall, I consider Doubt to be one of the most disappointing films of 2008. It was a mess of a film with so much potential, and I do not recommend it. The only shining light in the film is Meryl Streep, who though gives a stunning, solid performance - doesn't even do enough to save this film. *** / 10. | 0neg
|
OK, I am blessed. I have seen two very strong stage productions, the one in New York with the original cast, and another at the San Diego Rep (Rosina Reynolds and Monique Gaffney, you rock!). Compared to either of these the movie is almost unwatchable. I've been plodding through the DVD for the past two evenings and am still not finished. Way too much extraneous dialog, and waaay too many added scenes and people. Yes, the four major performances are quite good, esp. Ms. Streep's. But comparing stage to film is definitely an example of "less is more." The thickening of the play to satisfy film-goers' need for scenic variety and specificity was a poor choice. Please, please, please go find a stage production somewhere near you. | 0neg
|
The Oscar season has arrived so this means a slew of these deep, engaging, powerhouse ensemble films are all over the movie theaters in hopes of gaining an audience and having the opportunity to earn Best Picture in the big show. Among them is this film that is based off a very popular and well-acclaimed play. The original playwright was actually the writer and director of the film adaptation; which comes as a double-edged sword. On one hand, who better to translate the play than the original writer? On the other hand, who better to not see the mistakes and drawbacks of the play and fix upon them than the original writer himself? Doubt mixes excellent acting and plenty of tension and suspense; with a frustrating ending, unnecessary dialogue, questionable directing, and of course, the inability to provide substantial answers. It is a growing trend among these "high-caliber" films to not answer all questions it provides, and this has to stop.<br /><br />Doubt is like a joke without its punch line, like a book with the final 20 pages missing, like losing reception while watching the fourth quarter of a hotly contested football game, and like not having the 50 cents to continue playing the arcade game and see what happens next. Doubt, just like the previous Best Picture frustrationfest No Country For Old Men, doesn't really end; it doesn't provide us with considerable answers nor does it deliver enough for us to figure out the ending. Yes, that was the intent, but this isn't a test of humanity, it's a cop-out. I do not pay money to see an unfinished work, I pay money to see a beginning, middle, and end, and pray that I don't fall asleep during the three acts. We are forced to become the "writers" of the movie by filling in the blank ourselves as to what happened before and what will happen to the characters we saw screaming at each other.<br /><br />This little drama is about a nun (Meryl Streep) who seems very sure that the well-beloved priest (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is making sexual advances towards a child that goes to the church; the first African-American boy in the Catholic church. The church is secretly torn as to whether or not he really is committing heinous sins behind everyone's backs. The plot thickens as some of the kids begin behaving differently, which attracts the notice of a young teacher (Amy Adams). The story is set right after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which shook the nation for quite some time and questioned their faith in humanity and in each other.<br /><br />Doubt's strong points come in the acting ensemble and also the ever-engaging suspense that builds slowly and never boils over. Streep seems to be Oscar-worthy in every role she's in, and here she is no different as her sternness and cold-hearted behavior places a blanket of fear in all the students and with some of the staff in the church. Hoffman excels yet again as the priest, by successfully meshing suspicion with a charming personality and a friendly aura. The seemingly hypocritical personality is tough to pull off, especially when we are suppose to like him and also ponder about him at the same time; but Hoffman steps up to the plate against one of the best actresses of our generation and fantastically delivers. When these two argue, you can hear the fireworks fly without ever seeing one launched. But let's not forget Amy Adams (Enchanted) and Viola Davis (Law ad Order) for their superb job either. Doubt's casting ensemble is among the best in 2008.<br /><br />Yet, like previously stated it's the writing and directing that ruins this film, especially when dwindling down the third act. Questions pop up, but they aren't answered. Characters pop up, but provide no real enhancement towards the plot. Kids behave different, but we never truly find out why. There are awkward angles in the camera-work
and
there's no actual reason why. John Patrick Shanley, the writer of the play, had one previous film in his directing repertoire: Joe Versus the Volcano. Whether sheer arrogance or stupidity, we are stuck with seeing overdrawn sequences of random conversation, utter annoying chatter that bores to no end (There was a two minute discussion about coffee and how much sugar the priest wanted) thanks to Mr. Shanley.<br /><br />Bottom Line: The lack of an ending is a stupid trend that's just as irritating as the seizureific camera-work in action films. It doesn't matter that we have a great talented acting cast, or decent cinematography, or a good story being worked upon, or good usage of sound and music; because we have a barrage of unanswered questions that sprinkles all over a film that is over 100 minutes yet doesn't even finish! The translation from play to film is good and quite accurate, because we have the original madmen behind the projectbut he took the mistakes and stupid hiccups from the play to the film as well. This decade has seen its share of blockbuster and high-profile films that could have gotten a much higher score from me if they had just decided to add a few more minutes of footage and actually end: Sideways, Cast Away, No Country For Old Men, Burn After Reading are a few examples.<br /><br />Newsflash: end your stinkin' movie. Please or at least provide a good amount of clues for us to easily fill in the blank (like Wall-E's depressing backstories), instead of staring into space as the credits suddenly start rolling and you are left with a feeling of emptiness, confusion, and mental anguish. Have a beginning, middle, and the end please!! As a critic, I prefer my films to be whole, not incomplete. Doubt feels incomplete, which is why it gets an incompetent grade.<br /><br />Someone has to break this stupid trend. | 0neg
|
I am not one of those people that will walk out of a movie that was based on source material and automatically say, "The book was better." I know better than to demote the value of a movie just because it wasn't a faithful adaptation. There is a lengthy process and lots of decisions that go into making a movie that are sometimes out of the director's/editor's/cinematographer's/producer's control and certainly out of the original author's control. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect a movie to be exactly the same, word for word, as a book or play or video game or Disneyland Ride, or whatever! A movie should be judged on its own standard and how it fits in society. Moreover, a successful movie should be made because the material is relevant to the society which it belongs and, if it is based on source material, its relevance needs to be reexamined and enhanced by the filmmakers. <br /><br />Films like There Will Be Blood follow this paradigm because while it was based on a novel written at the turn of the century, Oil!, it feels relevant because of things like the Iraq war and energy concerns that the film's country of origin, the US, was and is experiencing. Even King Kong, based on the original film, benefits from using new technology and concerns of animal rights that people have.<br /><br />With that said, I just don't understand why they even bothered to make this movie? Besides the great performances, guaranteed Oscar nods and Shanley's director/writers fee and royalties he will get, this movie seems to come from nowhere. It should have simply stayed as a play. The movie (which is essentially the same as the play) says nothing new about the reprehensible sexual atrocities committed and in many cases covered up by the Catholic church here and abroad. It says nothing new or different than the original play. I can't help but compare this movie to another movie that came out at around the same time: Frost/Nixon, which was also based on a play. Frost/Nixon, while about Nixon's regrets, seems relevant because it seems to have come at a time when President Bush was about to leave office. The regrets that Nixon had, as depicted in the play/movie, about the war and his presidency could just as easily reflected on Bush and his presidency. In that respect Frost/Nixon seemed more relevant and actually benefited from a wider distribution via film because it got people talking and reflecting about the political status quo in the country at the time. In contrast, Doubt felt like it was yesterday's news and didn't seem to offer anything that the play didn't offer.<br /><br />Of course the movie is "good," the performances are outstanding, and the screenplay adaptation is apt, but so what? Why didn't it just stay as a play? Why, besides marketing and financial reasons, make it into a movie? It gave audiences nothing new to discus about the awful subject. | 0neg
|
I did not really want to watch this one. It seemed to be an old Raj Kanwar movie which disgusted me even before I started watching it because I don't consider him even close to being mediocre as a filmmaker. The only reason I took this one is obviously the Shahrukh Khan appearance in the film. I had not even known what the film was all about because I was sure it would be just an ordinary fairy tale. So I just imagined a love story between Shahrukh Khan and Divya Bharti with a substantial supporting role by Rishi Kapoor who I thought would be playing her father or uncle. And to my complete shock, Rishi Kapoor is actually the hero! He is the one who romances the young Divya! I was saddened to find out that Shahrukh had a small part of no substance and that too, only in the second part of this idiotic film.<br /><br />Just let me repeat the question: why would a 17 year-old lovely Divya have fallen for a 40-plus long haired, chubby, swollen piglet like Rishi Kapoor? Rishi Kapoor should be ashamed of taking this part; the only thing he did is ridiculing himself. He romanced a girl who could logically be younger than his own daughter and to make things worse -- acts like a teenager at his forties. On top of that, just to make himself more pathetic, he plays a pop-star...<br /><br />To make things clear, I have no problems with actors romancing ladies much younger than they themselves are. As long as they make a convincing couple, there should be no problem. In fact, leading actors have always been cast opposite young girls (Amitabh Bachchan-Sridevi, Mithun Chakraborty-Madhuri Dixit, Shahrukh Khan-Deepika, Salman Khan-Sneha Ullal) and made the pairing pretty well. Also, I have nothing against Rishi Kapoor, I think he is a good actor, and his act in Bobby is still well-engraved in my heart, but it's not that he looks in this film like, say, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan or Aamir Khan look today.<br /><br />That was such a disappointment. Oh, and as for the reason every person actually watched this film, Shahrukh Khan made a good debut. He excelled in the very little his part allowed him to do. The late Divya Bharti made a promising debut as well. If you want to watch this film, go for the second half only. Personally, I would not do even that. | 0neg
|
Dewaana as a film goes through the usual clichés. Man and Woman fall in love and marry, husband is supposedly killed by a family friend who wants their family fortune, woman remarries and surprise surprise husband no.1 reappears. The movie is reminiscent of Yash Chopra's Chandni and countless others. Divya Bharti and Shah Rukh Khan give good performances. Amrish Puri as a villain goes through the motions and is nothing more than a standard bollywood villain The music by Nadeem Shravan is superb, all the songs were brilliant. My favourites are Sochenge tumhe pyar or Koyi na koyi chahiyye. Dewanna is an ordinary movie that goes through the motions. | 0neg
|
I bought this movie because this was Shah rukh khans Debut.And i also liked to see how would he do.I must say he is excellent in his role.Divya Bharathi is superb in this movie.Rishi does a wonderful job.Susham Seth supported well.Alok nath was good in his role.Amrish and Mohnish did their parts well too.Dalip also was good in his small role.Actors shine in a Mediocre movie.The direction is average.The editing is poor.The story is boring.It tells us about Ravi a famous pop singer.He has a lot of female fans.One of them is Kaajal.Ravi and Kaajal fall in love and get married.Ravi gets killed by his cousins.Kaajal becoems a widow..To escape from Ravis cousins.They go to Bombay.She comes across Raja.She falls in love with him and gets married.Ravi returns.The story is predictable.The climax is predictable.The first half bores.It also drags a lot.But it is saved by the actors and music.The second half entertains.The music is catchy with some nice songs.The cinematography looks outdated in the first half but it looks unimaginative.The song picturisations are dull except for "Sochenge Tumhe Pyar" and one rain song.The costumes are outdated.Any way watch this just for the actors and music Rating-4/10 | 0neg
|
I'm one of the millions of Columbo addicts all over the world and just watched this,the episode that started it all, on British Channel 5. It IS fascinating to think what sprung from this so-so movie and I can only marvel at whoever spotted the massive potential of "Columbo" and added all the little touches that make it such a marvellous & classic series. That said, this particular movie is not as good as the rest (except for the embarrassing final episode & the patronising British episode). If Columbo had been made as per the original 'pilot' it certainly would NOT have gone on for very long, or be watched and loved world-wide. In this film Lt Columbo is smartly dressed, drives a normal car, has a partner, doesn't talk about his alleged relatives and comes across as quite aggressive. There's also none of the cat-and-mouse chemistry between Columbo and "the villain". Watchable, but only for the novelty of seeing how Columbo started out. | 0neg
|
I really like slasher movies,but this one is truly awful.The acting is lame,the script is bad,and the atmosphere is non-existent.The plot is as follows:a deformed gardener Charlie Puckett slaughters people in a small American town.That's right-this is the plot.Very original,eh!"The Night Brings Charlie" isn't even gory enough-if the film ain't gonna be scary,at least they should make it bloody.Avoid this cheap piece of trash at all costs.If you want to see some good slasher flicks check out "Madman","The Burning","The Prowler","Just Before Dawn" or "Humongous"- just don't waste your precious time with this worthless piece of garbage. | 0neg
|
I rented this movie because I was browsing through the horror movie section for those movies that no one's heard of and could be a possible gem. I saw this and, since I'm a fan of violence and gore, I got it. It got the rating of EM which means: Extremely Mature. Thinking that this rare and high rating was totally meant for violence and everything else, I got it. The warning on the box said: Extreme Violence, Extreme Langauge, and Nudity. The "extreme violence" struck my fancy. The movie ended being a pretty tame slasher flick. It had one or two gory scenes but I've seen worse in a PG-13 movie. Of course the amount of gore in a movie isn't all that counts, right? You have plot also. Well, the plot was boring and there nothing really special about it. Don't rent it. I speak the truth. I can't imagine how someone could really enjoy it to the point where they say: "I'm gonna rent that again." It had it's moments where it kept you going but I'm never going to see that film again. | 0neg
|
It really boggles my mind when someone comes across a movie like this and claims it to be one of the worst slasher films out there. This is by far not one of the worst out there, still not a good movie, but not the worst nonetheless. Go see something like Death Nurse or Blood Lake and then come back to me and tell me if you think the Night Brings Charlie is the worst. The film has decent camera work and editing, which is way more than I can say for many more extremely obscure slasher films.<br /><br />The film doesn't deliver on the on-screen deaths, there's one death where you see his pruning saw rip into a neck, but all other deaths are hardly interesting. But the lack of on-screen graphic violence doesn't mean this isn't a slasher film, just a bad one.<br /><br />The film was obviously intended not to be taken too seriously. The film came in at the end of the second slasher cycle, so it certainly was a reflection on traditional slasher elements, done in a tongue in cheek way. For example, after a kill, Charlie goes to the town's 'welcome' sign and marks the population down one less. This is something that can only get a laugh.<br /><br />If you're into slasher films, definitely give this film a watch. It is slightly different than your usual slasher film with possibility of two killers, but not by much. The comedy of the movie is pretty much telling the audience to relax and not take the movie so god darn serious. You may forget the movie, you may remember it. I'll remember it because I love the name. | 0neg
|
I'm not a big fan of slasher flicks as a genre, but even by the standards of low-low-budget exploitation, this one is really lame. Even on a nudity-and-gore level, it's incredibly boring (there is some of both, but it's all sort of...meh). Before the home video revolution, it might not even have been released theatrically (though it might have; after all, *Plan 9 From Outer Space* played in theaters). There is precisely one good (and competently-delivered) line in the entire movie; I assume they stole it from somewhere.<br /><br />The acting is among the worst I have ever seen. I mean, even Ed Wood had a couple of competent actors, and the rest tended to be ludicrously hammy, which can be fun to watch. Anyway, most of his actors could pretty much pass as literate. Here, those who don't read their lines like cigar-store Indians sound like they learned them phonetically. And this film does have one distinction: it manages to be badly underplotted for most of the movie, then laughably overplotted for the ending.<br /><br />(Update: I should have singled out the actress playing the receptionist as an exception. She is by no means wooden. Not that she's good, but she certainly isn't wooden.)<br /><br />Even the worst slasher flicks are generally good for a few Puritan meditations on their grotesque offensiveness, but with this one, there doesn't even seem to be anything there to work up a moral outrage about.<br /><br />And you know the funniest thing? They clearly expected to make a sequel!<br /><br />It's so bad and boring that it actually becomes fascinating in a weird way. I sat enrapt through much of the video wondering why anyone would go to the bother of making it. | 0neg
|
A teenager who seems to have it all commits suicide. It leaves his family and his best friend (Keanu Reeves) asking a lot of questions...and blaming themselves.<br /><br />Good idea, badly handled. For starters this HAS been done before 1988--mostly in TV movies and After School Specials. Aside from some swearing and dialogue (hence the PG-13 rating) this added nothing new. The outcome is predictable and Reeve's attempts at acting were truly painful to watch. He's good NOW but not in 1988. Aside from that his character was dressed like a slob and always looked so dirty is was hard to build up sympathy.<br /><br />That aside the movie is dull. I saw every scene coming and every "surprise" was telegraphed. I basically couldn't wait for this thing to get over.<br /><br />I have a vague recollection of seeing it in a theatre in 1988 and hating it (it bombed BADLY). It still looks lousy almost 20 years later. The subject is worth handling but it's been done better (with better acting) in countless other movies. "Ordinary People" comes to mind. You can skip this one. | 0neg
|
Keanu Reeves stars as a friend of a popular high school student who suddenly commits suicide...he and his friends go through emotional turmoil and share their reactions to this horrible incident...Good acting by Reeves and a young Jennifer Rubin..but on the whole is a little too much.. 4 of 10 | 0neg
|
I picked up this video after reading the text on the box, the story seemed good, and it had Keanu Reeves! But after 5 minutes of watching, I noticed how horrible his acting was, he walks and talks so stupid the whole time, it's fake and not convincing. It doesn't end there, almost ALL the characters act so badly it's laughable, the only acceptable acting was by Alan Boyce (David), but the guy commits suicide early on and you don't see him again, you never even know why he did it! Everything about this movie screams low quality, I can't believe how such a thing gets released! I was tempted many times to stop watching, in fact I did, half way through it I decided to stop watching and turned the thing off, came to the IMDB to check what other's thought about it, I found zero comments (not surprised), so I decided to force myself to handle the pain and go back to finish it then come here to comment on it. The only good thing going (for me) was the high-school Rock band theme, the occasional guitar playing and singing parts, but that's not worth it.<br /><br />Very bad acting and directing... Terrible movie. | 0neg
|
I can't recommend this film as a date movie. Gary Oldman's semi-autobiographical account of life lived on a South East London estate is a violent, Beckettian account of one of Dante's circles of hell, frankly. At the centre of it is Ray Winstone, who has done this sort of character before but never as well. The film opens with him ordering drinks at a pub bar - that's all - and you are already gripped with a sense of the frustration, self-loathing and barbarism that he exhibits in many different ways throughout the course of the movie. It's an acting masterclass.<br /><br />Of course the stymied and dispossessed need a foil in a drama such as this and Winstone is matched by Kathy Burke as his long-suffering wife, who absorbs and ultimately rejects his unbearable behaviour. Charlie Creed-Miles does an able turn as the fuse-lighting druggie son Billy although he must have wondered sometimes exactly what he let himself in for. Gary Oldman directs close up on the actors, maximising the claustrophobia of their council flat squalor. 4/10 | 0neg
|
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Ray (Ray Winstone) has a criminal past, has had problems with alcohol and is now forming a drug habit that is making him paranoid and prone to domestic violence to his wife Valerie (Kathy Burke) who tries to hold the family together but ends up coming off more like a doormat. Meanwhile, her mother Janet (Laila Morse) is aware of Ray's son, Billy (Charlie Creed-Miles) and his escalating drug habit that is sending him off the rails. The film follows these despairable characters as they tredge along with their lives.<br /><br />It is said that the British seem to enjoy being miserable, and that would include watching films that entertain them this way. Films like Nil by Mouth highlight this. It's a tale of a broken family, torn apart by crime, poverty, booze and drugs, the kind Jeremy Kyle would lap up like a three course meal. It is also essentially a tale of self destructive men, three generations apart and each copying the other, tearing a family apart and women trying to hold it together, despite not being strong enough. If you pick up a little of what it's about from the off-set, you can see it doesn't promise to be cheerful viewing from the start and it certainly doesn't disappoint in this.<br /><br />It's true what everyone said about the performances, and the lead stars, Winstone and Burke, do deliver some great acting. We see Winstone lose it with his wife, beating her senseless after some more coke induced paranoia, breaking down during a phone conversation with her and unleashing a typical arsenal of f and c words when she refuses to let him see his kid. Likewise, in a private moment, we see Burke skillfully lose her composure on a staircase, the full impact of the night before kicking in.<br /><br />This is another of those films where there's no 'plot' to follow, as such, just a real life feel of these hopeless lives carrying on from one day to the next. It's been acclaimed by many (including the Baftas!) but it really was just too grim and bleak for me. I have no right to criticize it for this, knowing what I knew about it from the off-set, but sadly this is how I found it. ** | 0neg
|
I'm not usually one to slate a film . I try to see the good points and not focus on the bad ones, but in this case, there are almost no good points. In my opinion, if you're going to make something that bad, why bother? Part of the film is take up with shots of Anne's face while she breaths deeply, and violin music plays in the background. the other part is filled with poor and wooden acting. Rupert Penry Jones is expressionless. Jennifer Higham plays Anne's younger sister with modern mannerisms. Anne is portrayed as being meek and self effacing, which is fine at the beginning, but she stays the same all through the film, and you see no reason for captain Wentworth to fall in love with her. Overall the production lacks any sense of period, with too many mistakes to be overlooked, such as running out of the concert, kissing in the street, running about in the streets with no hat on (why was this scene in the film at all? the scene in the book was one of the most romantic scenes written.). To sum it up, a terrible film, very disappointing. | 0neg
|
I love Jane Austen's stories. I've only read two of them (P&P and S&S), but after having seen this adaption, I'm reaching for "Persuasion" from my bookcase just to make sense out of the story, and also, because I refusing to believe Jane Austen could have written such nonsense. For me, I thought that if you base a film on a Jane Austen novel, you can't really go wrong. It will turn out great pretty much by default. I was wrong.<br /><br />First of all, where are the characters that you sympathise with and like? You have to have at least one likable character to get the audience to invest their emotions in them, and this did not deliver. Sure, I wanted Anne and Wentworth to get together, but only because that's what you know the purpose of the story is, them getting together. Instead, I had to resist urges to throw my teacup at the TV and to continue watching it to the end.<br /><br />Anne was utterly annoying throughout, and in the end, I really have no idea why Wentworth was so smitten by her, as there seemed to be nothing there for him to be attracted to. She was meek, bland, dull, socially inadequate and came across like a sheep following everyone else's instructions rather than having a mind of her own. This can still work for a lead character, if you do it well. This wasn't done well.<br /><br />The other characters were just displaying various degrees of narcissism, of which Mary was the worst, with a full-blown narcissistic personality disorder. Where Mrs. Bennet in P&P had similar flaws, she was still endearing, whereas Mary was more of a freak-show. More loathsome than funny.<br /><br />Wentworth was very handsome and seemed like a decent kind of guy. For the most part of the story, I was just wondering what kind of person he was and why he's in love with Anne, as surely, he's the kind of guy who would want a person who is a little bit more... alive? Acting-wise, not too much to say, as I reacted more to the characters being portrayed rather than how good/bad the people acting were. Anthony Head was excellent, but as soon as I saw he was in it, I expected no less.<br /><br />Also found the story very confusing. It wasn't until the end of the movie where it seemed as if Elizabeth was not Anne's stepmother, but in fact a sister (I'm still not 100% on that). The whole Anne/Wentworth back story was also a bit fuzzy. They had been together but then broke up and they're both bitter about it? How come? I was wondering this for quite some time, and the explanation seemed to be she dumped him because she was persuaded to do so by someone? But it was said in a kind of "by the by" way that it was almost missed, as if it was somehow unimportant. How can it be unimportant when it's the very core of the story?? There was also a lot of name-dropping, but no real feel for who the characters were. This Louisa person for instance, who was she? A friend? Family? What? It wasn't made very clear who the different characters are and their relationship with one another. Lady Russell was there a lot, but why? Mrs. Croft and Wentworth were brother and sister, which felt very unrealistic as Mrs. Croft looked old enough to be his mother.<br /><br />The final kiss, yes it was a bit strange them kissing in the street, but I didn't really think about it, because I was too busy yelling "GET ON WITH IT ALREADY!!" at the TV, because Anne's lips trembled and trembled and trembled for what felt like ages before they actually met Wentworth's. Have SOME hesitation there, but only for a couple of seconds or so, not half a minute.<br /><br />Then there's the issue of camera work. As a regular movie watcher, you don't pay attention to angles and such unless you decide to look out for it. I didn't decide to do so here, but I still noticed them. To me, that means the filmmakers are not doing a good job. A lot of conversations were with extreme facial closeups, something that should only be used when there's a really important point to be made. In this adaption, it was over-used and therefore lacked meaning. The hand-held feeling on occasion also didn't really work in a period drama. The camera work in the running scene in the end also felt too contemporary. (Not to mention the running itself.) This was the only Austen adaption I caught in ITV's Austen season. Makes me wonder if it's worth watching "Northanger Abbey" and "Mansfield Park" or if I should just read the books and leave it at that. I'm sad to say, this is a Jane Austen adaption I did not enjoy. Maybe I'll watch the 1995 version instead. The BBC are renowned for having done beautiful Austen adaptations before, after all. | 0neg
|
My God, was this the "Run, Lola, Run" adaptation of Persuasion? It was horrible. Bad enough that the "screenwriter" (and I use the term very loosely) cut and pasted dialogue from one character onto another, often completely out of context and to rush the story along: but Anne Elliott running from location to location in pursuit of Wentworth near the end of the piece was an abomination! Austen must be spinning in her grave. No respectable young woman would have acted in such an atrocious fashion. And the actress that played Mary? Horrors. Needless to say, if the rest of the Austen remakes are this bad, they will be turning off a new generation of watchers.<br /><br />If you want to see an impeccable version of this (otherwise) wonderful novel, get the 1995 Roger Michell directed version starring Amanda Root (whose expressions alone can speak volumes) and Ciaran Hinds. It is superb. | 0neg
|
I have no idea why they made this version of "Persuasion" when they already had that fine mini-series with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. I suppose that they wanted to make a feature-length version, but of course a lot had to be deleted; alas, what ended up on the cutting-room floor was all the lovely wit and humour, leaving a film that was mere melodrama rather than an amusing exposition of English country manners and mores.<br /><br />Also, the characters were shallow and uninteresting. They had poor Anne chasing up and down the streets after Captain Wentworth like a silly modern adolescent (and if you happen to be a silly modern adolescent reading this, let me tell you: running after a male like a female in heat is NOT cool). That is something a well-bred woman of the Napoleonic era would never have done, and certainly not this level-headed heroine.<br /><br />Some have said they found this antic laughable; my reaction was not laughter, but outrage. The very idea of such a corruption of an Austen work is beneath contempt.<br /><br />It was ghastly. | 0neg
|
I am a huge Jane Austen fan and I ordered the movie from Amazon.UK just so I could see it without waiting forever for it to come to the U.S. I really should have saved my money. What is with Anne running after Wentworth? The whole point of Anne Elliot's character is that she was quiet and refined. She is not impulsive and vulgar. And Mary, was she suffering from a stroke or something? Her speech wasn't normal, nor was her walking normal. There was no chemistry between the two main characters which made their whole "romance" completely unbelievable. In the final scene they even have Sally Hawkins wearing the same dress Amanda Root wore during the letter scene. The same clothes do not make it the same movie. In my opinion they didn't watch the 1995 version, which even though it had it's flaws, it did stay pretty close to the book. The book, I don't even think they read it. This is kind of like a Cliff's Notes movie of Persuasion. Hit on all the high points without explaining anything. | 0neg
|
Somewhere, on this site, someone wrote that to get the best version of the works of Jane Austen, one should simply read them. I agree with that. However, we love adaptations of great literature and the current writers' strike brings to mind that without good writers, it's hard for actors to bring their roles to life. The current version of Jane Austen's PERSUASION shows us what happens when you don't have a good foundation in a well-written adaptation. This version does not compare to the 1995 version with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds, which was well acted and kept the essence of the era and the constraints on the characters (with the exception of the bizarre parade & kissing in the street scene in Bath). The 2007 version shows a twitty Anne who seems angst-ridden. The other characters were not very developed which is a crime, considering how Austen could paint such wonderful characters with some carefully chosen understatements. The sequence of events that made sense in the novel were completely tossed about, and Mrs. Smith, Anne's bedridden and impoverished schoolmate is walking around in Bath - - twittering away, as many of the characters seemed to do. The strength of character and the intelligence of Captain Wentworth, which caused Anne to love him in the first place, didn't seem to be written into the Rupert Penry-Jones' Wentworth. Ciaran Hinds had more substance and was able to convey so much more with a look, than P-J was able to do with his poses. All in all, the 2007 version was a disappointment. It seemed to reduce the novel into a hand- wringing, costumed melodrama of debatable worth. If they wanted to bring our modern emotional extravagances into Austen's work, they should have done what they do with adaptations of Shakespeare: adapt it to the present. At least "Bride & Prejudice" was taken out of the historical & locational settings and was fun to watch, as was "Clueless". This wasn't PERSUASION, but they didn't know what else to call it. | 0neg
|
This production never really got off the ground for me. The plot is so cut up as to be disjointed and the production is so short that unless you've read the novel or seen a better adaptation (like the 1995 one with Amanda Root) you're going to be a bit lost since there's no time for character development.<br /><br />I liked Sally Hawkins as Anne, but the rest of the cast fell rather short of what they should have been. Mrs. Croft was far too old, as was Anne's elder sister Elizabeth. Mary uttered everything in such throbbing accents that the general peevishness and selfishness of her character was lost. Much better was Sophie Thompson's Mary, whose selfishness and sense of ill-usage is so well established that by the time Wentworth suggests Anne stay with the injured Louisa and Mary objects that she, as Louisa's sister in law, should stay instead, you can't imagine anyone less suited to do so. In this version, she might as well stay as she is insufficiently differentiated from anyone else in the production.<br /><br />Rupert Penry-Jones is nice to look at, but he made a much better St. John Rivers (1995 Jane Eyre), probably because that character required less implied depth of feeling. I agree with the comments made earlier about the gig scene: seemed more like he was trying to get rid of Anne than do her a favor. Likewise the accident scene: it happens so fast and with so little context, you wonder what all the fuss is about. And moving the speech that Wentworth overhears in the novel to the beginning of this production is a critical misstep that only contributes to the disjointed nature of the script. <br /><br />My other problem with this version was the lighting. Sometimes everything looked like a scene from the CSI morgue -- very very blue. Other times the lighting was so bad it was hard to make out the scene very well, like when Anne visits her old school friend, Mrs. Smith (who, by the way, is supposed to be more or less paralyzed. Having her run up to Anne on the street to tell her of Mr. Elliot's awful character was such a violation that for a minute I couldn't think who she was -- I thought she was one of the Musgrove girls. And she might as well have been. All the girls were pretty much interchangeable). And the running scene at the end...in an era where propriety was at a premium, it's hard to imagine gentle Anne tearing all over Bath like some demented hoyden. How silly can you get? It's too bad. Sally Hawkins had all the makings of a good Anne Elliot, but she was completely hamstrung by a poorly organized script and an over-truncated production. | 0neg
|
I had eagerly awaited the first screening of this film ever since it was given to me on DVD at Christmas. Having reserved a special slot for it last night, I sat down to watch it with my daughter (aged 17 and a Film Studies student), with chocolates of course, in eager anticipation. We love Jane Austin.<br /><br />After just the first two minutes we knew we were sunk. The shaky camera shots and angles, general poor cinematography, direction and wooden performances had already left us feeling flat and dissatisfied. Despondent, we viewed on.<br /><br />Anne, played by Sally Hawkins, looked oddly and with no particular purpose, directly at the camera on several occasions, breaking our hard-won 'fantasy of the moment' and engaging us directly in an almost 'I'll find you' stalking fashion.<br /><br />Poor Rupert Penry-Jones, who played Captain Wentworth, did his best with the script and direction, bless him. I hope they paid him well, however, as he was practically drowned on one occasion by a huge wave which predictably breached the seawall, drenching him and his co-actor. They were nearly swept out to sea. Health and Safety would have had a field day! Poor Rupert was left spitting out sea water in order to deliver his line. Presumably there was not enough money left in the kitty for a re-shoot of this scene. Anyone with any sense would have not attempted it on such a day in the first place.<br /><br />Other than Mr. Penry-Jones, Alice Krige gave the only convincing performance as Lady Russell but her efforts were soon counterbalanced by those of Anthony Head's unconvincing portrayal of annoying Sir Walter Elliott.<br /><br />Towards the long-awaited end of the film, Captain Wentworth appeared to oddly grace Anne with a visit every two seconds having taken great pains to avoid her for the majority of the movie. It was as if he had developed a memory impediment which caused him to forget his very reason for being. In contrast, Anne ran, hyper-ventilating, from pillar to post in search of the good Captain who, in the meantime, had managed to call upon almost the entirety of Bath we are told, in the course of only three or four minutes, without even having worked up a sweat.<br /><br />We experienced none of Anne's charms crossing the screen. Indeed, we were left wondering what charismatic Captain Wentworth had ever seen in plain, spineless, opinion-less Anne and why someone, anyone, did not tell mean, winging Sir Walter to just shut the heck up.<br /><br />The crucial kiss, normally our favourite girlie moment, was painfully drawn out. As they moved in closer, Anne kept opening and closing her mouth which had the effect on screen of making her look as if she were chewing gum before lips finally met. Eww! <br /><br />The most enjoyable thing about last night was the chocolates and the half hour exchange of views between mother and daughter on just how bad the film had been.<br /><br />What a pity to ruin such an enchanting and engaging story, filmed in some of England's finest scenery.<br /><br />Sorry Jane. | 0neg
|
I have to confess that I am severely disappointed.<br /><br />This version can in no way compete with the version of 1995. The reason why I watched it was that I wasn't entirely happy with Ciaran Hinds as Captain Wentworth and thought that Rupert Penry-Jones looked much more like the Captain I had imagined when I read the book. And he was too.<br /><br />Unfortunately that is the only redeeming quality of the film. The rest is as un-Austen-like as possible.<br /><br />Miss Elliot would NEVER have run through the streets of Bath like this. It wasn't in her character and it just wasn't done by a lady of the those times. The Anne Elliot of the book was a lady and she had dignity. There are other painful anachronisms but this was the worst.<br /><br />Although there are 3 important quotes from the book, they are at entirely inappropriate moments, warning those who know the book that yet another important part of the book will either be missing or completely changed.<br /><br />And although this version is not much shorter than the other one, it feels like everything is rushed. Very little care was taken to introduce the characters, show their dispositions and motives. Important scenes were omitted. How could they possibly have butchered the final scenes in this way ? A disaster ! And it was by far not as beautifully photographed as the other one.<br /><br />No, no, no. If you love Austen, then don't waste your time with this. | 0neg
|
The humor in Who's Your Daddy is such poor taste that I actually closed my eyes in certain scenes. Close ups of semen are not funny! Nobody thinks they are. People get nervous when they see something so gross and to hide their nervousness, they laugh. Watching Who's Your Daddy gave me a disgusting nervous feeling. | 0neg
|
Chris, an adopted son of a moral family, a loser whom works at the school newspaper with Kate (Christine Lakin from of the awful sugary "Step by Step" show of the now thankfully defunct ABC's TGIF line-up), finds out that he's just inherited a porn empire from his biological parents. He loses sight of what true friendship and love is and blah blah some other nonsense. He also has to contend with an Uncle who wants control of the family business and a shifty lawyer (arn't they are?) A slightly below average teen comedy that steals from better teen comedies (the opening alone is HIGHLY American Pie-esquire), bops you on the head with the moral every chance it gets, and wastes the only star talent it has (Wayne Newton, Lin Shaye, and if i'm really stretching the star word, Martin Starr of "Freaks and Geeks", and Justin Berfield of "Malcolm in the Middle"). It's not bad exactly, but it's far from good.<br /><br />Eye Candy: a few extras get topless <br /><br />My Grade: C- <br /><br />Where I saw it: Starz on Demand (available until September 29th) | 0neg
|
My friends usually can put up with a lot of hopeless movies but this one was too poor for us to even watch it to the end. It was just so boring and unoriginal. Not even the "hot" girls that starred in this movie could keep me watching. Everything was just predicable and annoying.<br /><br />The acting was at times good.....but more times bad. The most annoying character in the whole movie that you just wanted to die would have to be the main characters best friend. The more i saw him the more i wanted to smash my screen. (you know what fat ugly kid I'm talking about)<br /><br />The plot has been done so many times before i think they should be sued by other movie companies. OK, it is a good idea but thats all this movie had.<br /><br />Overall this movie can only be watched if by your self, to save any abuse from your friends. Or, if you have absolutely nothing better to do. | 0neg
|
When a comedy movie boasts its marvelous soundtrack on the back cover you know your not dealing with a top notch movie. I rented this movie with friends expecting to get some chuckles but overall to get most of our laughs off each other making fun of the movie. We couldn't have chosen a worse movie.<br /><br />The movie may have been alright with a few changes. First off, the comedy was painful. Physical gags were poorly performed and placed. The fat kid in the movie made us want to kill ourselves, bless him for trying scene in and scene out but he was like a puppy begging for love. If he had been pulled from the movie everything might have been bearable. There were some funny jokes, I believe one was when the group of boys steal one of the parent's porn movies and it turns out to be gay porn. But to best sum up the comedy I will simply tell the opening gag for the fat kid. He wears a puke stained shirt and talks about not knowing when something is done.<br /><br />To finish off, the editor of the movie could have saved the movie by removing the fat kid, cutting out 20 minutes of the school scenes and making an ending that is longer than thirty seconds of random bickering.<br /><br />OH, BTW, there are two good elements that the movie possesses. Kadeem Hardison plays his role wonderfully and performs his jokes so that none are missed or under-appreciated. The other redeeming element to the movie is the beautiful Mrs. Ali Landry. Her character is ignored most of the movie which is a shame.<br /><br />Don't waste your time even renting this one. It didn't appeal to me and I was part of the target audience (18 male). | 0neg
|
I caught this on Showtime tonight and was amazed by how a movie with such a interesting premise could wind up being so unbelievably awful. WHO'S YOUR DADDY? stars Brandon Davis as an adopted high school senior Chris Hughes, a geek who inherits the heir to a porn empire left to him by his biological parents. Though the premise sounds like the movie could be a lot of fun, it is ruined by inept directing from first-time director Andy Fickman, a clichéd and predictable screenplay, and acting that is even bad by direct-to-video standards. Even the normally funny Charlie Talbert turns in a surprisingly dismal performance as the best friend. Ali Landry is the only good part of this lame and unfunny dud. 1/10 | 0neg
|
No, this is nothing about that fairy tale with the pumpkin coach, fairy godmother and the glass slippers, but if I were to elaborate, I would have to spoil it for you, which I won't. But don't let curiosity get the better of you, as this movie is not fantastic. It's one of those movies that start off promisingly, before betraying its audience with cheap scare tactics and an incoherent storyline. And that's real horror.<br /><br />Yoon-hee (To Ji-Won) and Hyun-soo (Shin Se-kyeong) are your ideal mother and daughter. One's a successful plastic surgeon, while the other your dutiful, obedient, and beautiful teenage daughter. Their relationship is like hand in glove, so close you'd think of them more as siblings rather than parent-child. But things start to go wrong (don't they always) when Hyun-soo's friends, whom Yoon-hee has operated on, start to go berserk.<br /><br />Perhaps it's a warning to audiences, and for those Koreans ladies who don't bat an eyelid when going under the knife, if news reports are to be believed. The only truly scary moments are those scenes in plastic surgery, though somehow, I thought Kim Ki-duk's Time actually had more gore when featuring and describing what goes on during the surgery itself.<br /><br />It's a tale of two halves, the fist being an attempt to shock audiences with standard scare tactics, which, I admit, did get to me now and then. However, the second half degenerated the movie into mindless mumbo-jumbo melodramatics, and was quite contrived into its forcing its ideas down your throat. Some things begin not to make sense, and while attempts are always presented to explain, you probably won't buy it, not that horror movies are logical to begin with.<br /><br />The leads are all beautiful, and there is a distinct lack of male presence besides the negligible cop role. But hey, I'm not complaining, though the storyline could have been improved tremendously. I'd recommend you to watch this, only if you're a fan of mediocre Korean horror, on VCD. Watch out for those face off-ish moments! | 0neg
|
Disappearance is about a couple who take their family on vacation in New Mexico and find themselves in deep trouble after taking a detour off the main highway to visit a town that was seemingly abandoned in 1948 for unknown reasons. The town of Weaver seems harmless at first and has tourist appeal until the family is stranded there overnight and they begin to have good reason to suspect that others have experienced their same predicament with fatal outcomes. The Henleys watch a Blair-Witch-Project-esquire video diary left by the town's last victim, which ironically demonstrates the best performance of anyone in this movie. Although Hamlin and Dey's performances are much better than the supporting casts', their emotional affect seems "flat" to me throughout the movie. <br /><br />Disappearance has appeal for most of the movie as there is much suspense and good direction. However, the plot takes unexpected and implausible turns that seemingly make no sense. Worse yet it that there really is no understanding of what exactly is going on in the movie, which makes the bizarre ending less tolerable. It appeared to me that the movie makers were so focused on making a stream of suspenseful scenes, that they threw away all the elements of good story making: plot development, gradual explanation of themes and symbols that lead to a cohesive solution/outcome. <br /><br />The most difficult aspect of the movie for me was that the first three-quarter of it was spent building up tension and curiosity about certain aspects of the plot that were then suddenly disposed of as if we didn't deserve an explanation: <br /><br />What was the significance of the Indian symbols on the walls? What happened to the original people of Weaver? What was the connection with the people at the dinner? What did the Sheriff know? What did the missing boy discover if anything?<br /><br />This was, I believe, a bad move, since it engendered some resentment. I had invested quite a bit of brainpower into hypothesizing some plausible explanations for some of these plot turns and strange events, only to have the movie makers simply end it without giving an answer to any of these things. These are some nice cliffhangers for the ending of a miniseries that is about to pickup again next week, but a totally frustrating and inappropriate ending for a stand-alone movie. | 0neg
|
If you like movies about creepy towns, hotels, houses, states (ala the Eagles "Hotel California"), etc. that possess the people that are "just passing through," read almost any Stephen King novel instead. If you like the setting of "Disappearance" start by reading King's "Desperation" but also check out "The Shining", "Salem's Lot" and "Needful Things."<br /><br />The crow motif, the desert, the family driving in desperation to escape or avoid possession are tired. Why didn't they just make the film from the "Desperation" novel? Maybe they approached King and he nixed? Must be.<br /><br />Susan Dey and Harry Hamlin look happy to be reunited and they have both worn well over the years, but they're still TV and direct-to-DVD caliber actors. | 0neg
|
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** When I saw a preview for this movie I thought it was going to be atleast a slightly admirable storyline. But as most superstation original movies I was left disapointed. This gullible family ends up driving through this "deserted" town to take a brake and find this video camera showing these people doing everything their donig and finds out they all eventually disappear, the family goes through all these mysterious stages and never discovers or displays what the heck is stalking them. Their are more gaps than I can count and they don't explain anything that happens how or what. It ends where the family gets in a car accident and get posest or brainwashed or something( which is never explained). The next thing you know ur hoping they somehow find out how all it happened but it ends leaving you completely confused. | 0neg
|
This is waaaaay to much.. so frustrating to watch.. I was waiting for the whole damn movie to end and to finally get some ANSWERS!!.. and what I've had in the end was nothing but a HUUUGE neon-sign question mark above my head!!!!! I haven't seen such a bad acting and such a nonsense movie in a long long time.. and what's bothering me is.. how come someone (an actor) read the script of such a bull!?#@ movie and say: OK, I'M IN!!! LET'S FILM THIS! This is horrible!!! THIS MOVIE SUUUUUUUUUUUUCKS!!!!!! I just can't believe I've spent an hour and a half of my life on something like this!!! | 0neg
|
A bickering, American family, vacationing in the west, discover a strange ghost town in the middle of the desert. Little do they know that this ghost town was once a test site for nuclear bombs, and a deadly presence is stalking them. I generally love mystery-horror films like this. "Cube", Spielberg's "Duel" and "The Birds" are all great examples of movies that give no answers but nonetheless leave us intrigued and wanting more. Apparently, "Disappearance" writer/director Walter Klenhard was trying to make just that kind of film, and whether or not he succeeded is up to the viewer. I personally think he got about half way there, then the film just sunk.<br /><br />The actors are all kind of just "ho-hum". Their not especially bad but we as an audience never really feel their fear and they react to situations in unrealistic ways. Is anyone else absolutely SICK of characters just walking out off to investigate strange sounds?!?!? At least give them SOME kind of justification for doing so!?!?!?<br /><br />As far as made-for-TV films go it's an above average fair for sure. Director Klenhard Should be commended for really milking the desert environment for everything it offered and some of the setting were striking. There's a really cool scene where two characters find an old nuclear test ground were the sand had been completely melted to glass for as far as the eye could see. I wonder if that was real
<br /><br />No gore to speak of, and the 'creatures'
or what ever the hell it is that's after these people
are never shown, not to mention that we are never even given a real clue as to what they are (Mutants, aliens, ghosts or ancient evil Indian spirits
Oh, that really narrows it down for us!) or where the come from. <br /><br />There are lots of clichés here, too. Why is it that towns-folk in these kinds of films are always really, really dumb? Why is there always an old guy everyone thinks is crazy that turns out to be correct? Why? Why? Why? How 'bout a NEW scenario, folks! <br /><br />"Disappearance" tries to be different and intelligent but ultimately fails in that in many ways it's too familiar to us fans of direct-to-video horror fodder. Hey, I've seen much worse films, and disappearance ain't bad, it's just too
Average.<br /><br />4/10. | 0neg
|
What starts out as an interesting story quickly disintegrates into nothing. Don't bother watching to the end hoping for an explanation of what is stalking the visitors, there is no ending. No explanation, no resolution, zip. This could have been a good movie it they had purchased an entire script. | 0neg
|
This movie was lame, lame, lame. What a build up! What a let down. All form, no substance. A terrible waste of talent and time. Would not recommend it to my husband's dog, who will watch anything. | 0neg
|
The ending of this movie made absolutely NO SENSE. What a waste of 2 perfectly good hours. If you can explain it to me...PLEASE DO. I don't usually consider myself unable to "get" a movie, but this was a classic example for me, so either I'm slower than I think, or this was a REALLY bad movie. | 0neg
|
The progression of the plot is enough to "rope one in" and create curiosity about the outcome. However, ultimately, the feeling that remains is that the producers of the movie forgot to end it. If the intention was to create a perpetual circle (occasionally done in the Twilight Zone), it was too sloppy to view as a positive effort. | 0neg
|
In the beginning and throughout the movie, it was great. It was suspenseful and thrilling. Yet in the end it gave no answer to what had happened. They mysteriously turned into zombies by a raven or crow? It did not answer the questions that we all had and therefore, was not as good a movie as I thought that it was going to be. | 0neg
|
This movie tries to hard to be something that it's not....a good movie. It wants you to be fooled from begining to end,But fails.From when it starts to get interesting it falls apart and you're just hoping the ending gives you some clue of just what is going on but it didn't.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
Disappearance is set in the Mojave desert as Jim (Harry Hamlin) & Patty Henley (Susan Dey) plus their two kids Katie (Basia A'Hern) & Matt (Jeremey Lelliott) along with Ethan (Jamie Croft) a friend of the family are travelling along, they stop at a roadside diner & ask about an old deserted mining town on the map called Weaver. No-one claims to have heard of it but it's definitely there & the family decide to take a detour in order to check it out & take some pictures. Once at the town they take some pictures & have a look around but when it comes time to leave their car won't start & they have to spend the night there. While looking around they find a camcorder videotape which they play only to discover footage of a scared woman saying all her friends have disappeared, the next morning & their car has disappeared as things take a very sinister turn. What is Weaver's secret? Will the Henley's ever leave there alive...<br /><br />Written, co-executive produced & directed by Walter Klenhard I have to say that Disappearance is one of the most frustrating films I have ever watched. For the first 85 minutes it was a pretty good mysterious mix of thriller & horror film but then we are treated to one of the single worst endings ever in motion picture history. The script suggest lots of different things but never elaborates or confirms & I was sitting there genuinely intrigued about what was going on, from the families car mysterious disappearing, the four recent graves, the thing in the abandoned mines, the supernatural sandstorm, the sudden & unexplained disappearance of Ethan & his just as unexplained reappearance, the Sheriff's sinister motives, the compass in the car going crazy, the crashed plane, the townspeople denying Weaver existed & the possible side effects of a neutron bomb being dropped near Weaver in the 40's but they are all tossed out of the window & for all we know could have been totally separate random events. Everything was coming along nicely & was set up for a big twist revelation but none was forthcoming & instead I was treated to the most ambiguous, strange, surreal & downright frustrating ending possible. If nothing else the ending contradicts much of what has gone before & leaves the viewer with more questions than answers. It's almost as if the makers had these great ideas but then didn't know what to do with them & just made the ending up on the spot. I just felt I put so much effort into watching the film which can be pretty slow at times without any sort of reward & in fact the ending felt more like a kick in the teeth or a good two finger salute!<br /><br />Director Klenhard does a reasonable job here, the old ghost town has a certain atmosphere & the large expansive desert locations give a good sense of isolation. It's well made but what were they thinking with that ending? Nothing fits, nothing makes sense & it's just a huge frustrating mess that after sitting through the thing for nearly an hour & a half leaves you confused & wanting to know more. Despite being a horror film there's no blood or gore although there are one or two creepy moments here & there. The film actually reminds of The Hills Have Eyes (2006) remake for large parts as that is what the film is set-up to be before a bizarre ending which does nothing to bring any closure to the film.<br /><br />Technically the film is good with high production values, good special effects, sets, locations & cinematography. Set in America but filmed in South Australia. The acting is fine from a decent cast.<br /><br />Disappearance is a really odd film, for a long time it shapes up to be a neat little horror mystery thriller but it never explains anything which happens & the truly surreal ending just throws up more questions than answers. I really can't see anyone making head nor tail of this, I really can't. | 0neg
|
This is hands down the worst movie I can ever remember watching. Everything was unbelievably cliché and retarded. The acting was horrible too. The camera work wasn't bad but that still couldn't redeem it. The writer/director of this film must suffer from down's syndrome if he believed this movie would help his career. I want the hour and a half of my life back that I wasted watching this crap. I would rather watch a video of the grass growing than this. I cant believe IMDb is making me write 10 lines in order to post this but I feel that this movie is so bad that I must continue to warn others about it. The reason I came about this movie is that my girlfriend requested it from the local library thinking that it was the Kris Kristoferson movie which ended up being entitled "Disappearances". I don't know whose fault it was for this garbage ending up in my DVD player but I feel that someone owes me at least $20 for my time, pain and suffering. In conclusion, the director/writer of this movie better hope i ever recognize him on the street. | 0neg
|
We had to go to an appointment, so we turned on the DVR to record the ending. After it was over, I looked at my husband and said, "Do you have a clue?". He shook his head no. I said, "So you made me watch the end of this movie and I have no clue what just happened". He didn't "make" me, but you know.<br /><br />The movie body itself was quite good. There was a lot of suspense. It kept you wondering. Then came the ending. The ending was... well it just ENDED. You weren't let in on what happened or why. Right up until the credits I kept thinking something would happen to explain it, but it never did. So I came here expecting someone figured it out and I just wasn't paying attention. Nope. Here four years later, I'm just as clueless as tom sawyer was.<br /><br />I still have no clue what went on. I'm just glad I didn't waste any $$ to buy it because I sure would have been mad.<br /><br />OHHHHH! I get it! The end of the movie is what disappeared! ROFL | 0neg
|
I've read some of the other comments and I do have to agree with the ones that didn't get the ending. I thought it was going rather well..until the end. It kept your mind running and then splat. I have not clue what went on the last couple minutes of the movie except a complete mess. It's like they ran out of money to come up with a good ending so they improvised. First they had a mysterious thing making people disappear then they had a guy talking about Area 51 (which makes you think about aliens) then after they it went to crap. I thought the actors and actresses did fine it's just the script went sour. Anyways, if you do watch this movie be prepared to be disappointed at the end. | 0neg
|
Normally, I have no problem with a movie or story with an ending that leaves you wondering to puzzle out what really happened, when it's done on purpose...<br /><br />But this movie really feels like they got all but the last 15 minutes done, then realized they had $5 left to finish on...<br /><br />I saw it on TBS... I recommend you not spend money on it either. If you catch it on TV, watch all but the last 15 minutes, then walk away and make your own ending in your mind.<br /><br />Really, the movie would have been better if they had simply got away, and come back with the State Poice of Feds only to find that the town and the car graveyard was gone, and by all appearances had never been there...<br /><br />"Wish I had more thumbs, so I could give that movie 4 thumbs down!" | 0neg
|
After I got done watching this movie I was so upset that I had wasted 2 hours of my life. That's 2 hours I'll never get back. Ugh. When you start this you might think "Wow this is really good!" But rest assured that first impressions mean NOTHING. I was so excited about this movie until the dumbest ending I have ever seen. This movie is simply pathetic. The acting is bland, the story line is anything but original and there's nothing especially unique about this except that it's the WORST MOVIE EVER!!! DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! WARNING!! DUMBEST MOVIE EVER YOU WILL BE SORRY IF YOU WASTE 2 HOURS OF YOUR LIFE ON THIS!!! 1/10 | 0neg
|
Well, i rented this movie and found out it realllllllly sucks. It is about that family with the stepmother and the same stupid fights in the family,then the cool son comes with his stupid camera and he likes to take a photo to damaged building and weird things and weird movie ,and then he asks his father to take him to a side trip and simply agrees, etc etc etc..... They go to that town which no one know it exists (blah blah blah) And the most annoying thing is that the movie ends and yet you don't understand what is THAT MOVIE!!!!I have seen many mystery movies but that was the worst, Honestly it doesn't have a description at all and i wish i didn't see it. | 0neg
|
For a made-for-TV "horror" movie the movie started off very interesting. I was really intrigued by the story and the mystery of the film. But the ending was a total dissappointment. The movie was going along fast-paced and was building up to, it seemed like anyway, to a very climatic end. But guess what there is no end. The movie is just over and after almost one-and-a-half hours the audience is just left wondering what happened. Why were all the unanswered questions in the film left unanswered. There was no explanation at all about any of the key points in the plot. This film is like watching a murder mystery and then never finding out who did it. Very dissappointed. This film looks like the producers just ran out of money and never completed the film. A real BOMB! | 0neg
|
The movie starts out fine. Widower out with new girlfriend and the children.<br /><br />The movie is filled with stupid director's choices. Like "lets separate." "I am coming down to...." do what? Stupid Stupid Stupid.<br /><br />Please do not waste your time hoping that it will get better.............. Not hardly. | 0neg
|
Visually speaking, this film is stunning. It has some delightful black comedic moments. But on the whole, the plot is very clichéd, as is its seeming message. If you're a fan of over-the-top violence in mainstream movies like hostel or saw, you'll love it. If you're looking for something at all high-brow, steer away. I saw it as part of the edinburgh film festival 06, and I only chose it because I was looking for something disturbing. Ultimately, it isn't disturbing. Just grinding and unpleasant to sit through. If you genuinely want to be challenged, go see something like The Lost. If you want to be grossed out, or tell your friends about a really messed up film, then this is for you. | 0neg
|
(Only minor spoilers except as noted).<br /><br />I've enjoyed a lot of Spanish cinema recently; both the actual Spanish cinema of people like Almodovar, and the Latin American cinema of directors like del Toro, whose superb "Devil's Backbone", set in Civil War Spain, was the finest horror film of the last decade. It's no surprise, then, that this film is both well-made, well-acted, and manages to sustain that distinctively different Spanish atmosphere. But it's also as nasty and pointless a film as one could hope not to have to see.<br /><br />What actually is the purpose of all this? We have no real idea what caused the creepy central character to embark on his killing spree, despite the fact that large amounts of narrative voice-over are drawn directly from his own narcissistic journal. In a routinely unpleasant opening sequence, set more than a decade earlier, we see the central character killing his girlfriend in a rage of jealousy and control-freakery ("
if I can't have you nobody can
."). Oddly enough, that is perhaps one of the best sequences in the film, but it has no discernible relation to his subsequent killing spree, which appears completely different in both motivation and execution. What happened to him in jail to cause this change? We have no idea, though we do later discover, as an absurd sort of afterthought, that he obtained a law degree while imprisoned.<br /><br />In Britain, in several of our notorious "serial killer" or "sex killer" cases, the terrible question arises; what about the wife? Did she know, or suspect what was going on? This is a question that this film could have asked, and indeed the wife does begin to emerge as one of the more intriguing characters. But banally, the answer to the question is quite clearly: "No, she didn't". Even when a dramatic opportunity like this is presented on a plate, the film still manages to bungle it. All we actually get, sketched perfunctorily out at the end, is her slightly amoral preparedness to cash in on the proceeds after the event. Compare this to the awful revelatory moment in Ten Rillington Place, where Christie's wife says "you know what I mean
." thereby sealing her own fate and allowing us an appalled glimpse into unimaginable chasms of suppressed knowledge and horror.<br /><br />(Major spoiler in this paragraph). In the meantime, we are supposed to believe that the killer himself is a criminal mastermind who comprehensively outwits the police, thereby securing the briefest of incarcerations in a mental hospital before being released so that he can kill again. How exactly did he achieve this? The plot gets extremely sketchy at this point; something to do with deliberately leaving certain clues for the police; but how this all works or why, or how the subsequent court case actually proceeds, remains a mystery.<br /><br />I actually don't believe serial killers are like this. The Silence of the Lambs may be comic book stuff, but Lecter aside it gets its serial killers right. They are deeply disturbed, deeply dysfunctional, deeply inadequate people; not the creepily charming mastermind presented here (closely related to the equally implausible suave killer of The Last Horror Movie, or indeed even Man Bites Dog, though it appears not to have been noticed that that was a satire).<br /><br />This film has little suspense, and bungles what little intrigue the plot might have generated. It has nothing useful to say about the motivations of serial killers, either generally, or in the specific cultural milieu of Spain. This is nothing more than a poorly plotted excuse to show some pretty misogynistic violence to women. And oddly, what makes that violence even more repulsive is a certain prissy failure of nerve even in how it is presented. The soft core character of what is actually shown just makes it seem even more repellently titillatory. Just one explicit shot, properly timed, would have been infinitely more shocking, and would have rendered all the rest completely unnecessary, freeing up more film time to flesh out the gaping holes in plot and characterisation. Instead we just get endless shots of young women vulnerably spreadeagled on a table in their pretty but slightly revealing underwear. Very, very creepy. I'm sorry to be rude; I love horror films, and can tolerate even the most extreme, to the extent even of worrying my partner. But I think anyone who finds this film good, or interesting, even I'd find myself edging away from. The purpose of a horror film is to scare you; this is just lascivious.<br /><br />It leaves a very bad taste in the mouth indeed. I have to give this film more than one star just because it's competently executed, but morally it deserves none at all and should never have been made. | 0neg
|
The name (Frau) of the main character is the German word for "Woman". I don't know if that was intentional or not, but if sure got some giggles from the German audience at the Fantasy Film Festival last year, when it was shown.<br /><br />But those were the only giggles the movie got. Not that it was aiming for giggles, it's a horrible movie for heaven's sake! A horrible movie in more than one meaning. It's a shame that a premise like that was wasted with horrible even unbearable moments for the viewer (definetely not for the faint of Heart!!)! And it wasn't even necessary to show all the things that are shown. I'm not even going into a moral obligation (because movies don't really have that kind of task or function) discussion of what is shown here, but this is a new low on the whole "torture movement" that has grown in the last few years! | 0neg
|
I read some comments on the internet about this film like "...harder then Hostel...", "the camera never screens of when it's getting really brutal...". But none of them is true. The camera never screens of, because there is nothing to screen of. The same scene is repeated hundred and hundred times again. Women lies on a table, killer rapes women a few times, killer cuts women into pieces (you never see this during the whole film!). Police come and arrested him. Killer fools the jury. Film over. In Germany we would say :"Viel Lärm um Nichts". All in all, one of the most boring films I ever see. Absolutely non-recommendable. | 0neg
|
This self proclaimed "very talented artist" have directed easily the worst Spanish film of the 21st century. Lack of emotion, coherence, rhythm, skills, humor... it repeats the same situation over and over again. It shows no character development. It does not even show any violent and/or sexual content, and it does not add anything new to the psycho-killer sub genre. So lame it should be shown at film schools as an example of "what not to do" in a first movie.<br /><br />BTW where the hell is the "talent"? there are scenes which have been shot almost identically; there are scenes which have two or more master shots and it is quite awful to see the action jumping from one master shot to another without a reason. The camera almost never moves, as if the "very talented artist" was afraid of showing his lack of visual skills. The actors playing the main roles act like amateurs, and the supporting cast is hardly believable. There are more holes than plot in the script (if ever there was one)...<br /><br />A really disheartening movie, and a whatsoever talented director. | 0neg
|
I absolutely adore the book written by Robin Klein, so I was very excited when I heard that a movie based on the book was in the making.<br /><br />But I was severely disappointed with the movie when I did see it because it didn't capture what I loved about the book - the absolutely ridiculously funny Erica and the interesting way in which she views the world.<br /><br />From the start of the movie, I realised that things weren't the same as I had imagined in the book. So, I just went along for the ride. It wasn't all that bad, I guess. Miss Belmont was totally different to what I had imagined her to be! I didn't think she would be one to smoke and drink - Jean Kittson, who plays her, is hilarious!<br /><br />On it's own, I thought the movie and it's actors/actresses in it did a good job, but alas, I'm such a fan of the book (one of my all time favourite books) that I couldn't help but feel disappointed =P | 0neg
|
i am 13 and i hated this film its the worst film on earth i totally wasted my time watching it and was disappointed with it cause on the cover and on the back the film it looks pretty good, but i was wrong its bad. but when i saw delta she was totally different and a bad actress and i really didn't know how old the 2 girls was trying to be i was so confused. the film was in some parts confusing and i didn't enjoy it at all but i watched all the film just to see if it was going to get better but it didn't, it was boring,dull and did i say BORING.and i don't think many other people liked it as well as me.boring boring boring | 0neg
|
"Die Sieger" was highly recommended to be one of the few good action movies made in Germany. I watched it last night and I must admit, that I am deeply disappointed. If that is supposed to be "the last best hope" for entertaining and challenging German action cinema, well then there is not much left.<br /><br />"Die Sieger" tries to be sexy, daring and furious but it is nothing of that kind. The characters are wooden and stereotype and whenever they do something unexpected (which doesn't happen too much) the act against their nature. That makes it hard - for me almost impossible - to follow them or even identify with them.<br /><br />Most of all I think the film is very bad cast. There is not one character in whom I believe. Maybe the superior officer at the SWAT unit - but that's about it. Those people that try to look like or act like special units, like elite cops - I don't believe them. Not for a second.<br /><br />The story is not so bad after all. But I think it's badly told. You don't get to know the bad guy at all - for example. And when after a "very dark" show down Karl Simon (the good guy) asks his already dead opponent "why? ... what for?" I did ask myself that very same question, knowing, that Dominik Graf wouldn't have the answer.<br /><br />I sincerely hope - no - I believe that Germany can do better, even with action films. | 0neg
|
I grew up watching the original TV series in the sixties and one thing that I can tell you right away, there is NO comparison. This film was totally ridiculous with a flying suit that was alive. A martian that took different shapes. Special effects that looked like something that a little child would create. In contrast, in the original, characters were developed and the viewers developed a feeling for Tim and Uncle Martin. The only highlight in this film, yes, actually there was one, occurred when Ray Walston finally made an appearance at the end. He wore dark glasses and made references to living on this planet for 30 years as a sort of homage to the TV series. But even the real Uncle Martin could not save this turkey. | 0neg
|
Silly, often ridiculous romp involving the landing of a space ship and the resulting havoc this causes on Tim (Jeff Daniels) and the people in his orbit.<br /><br />Am always amazed by Daniels. He showed such depth and promise in 1983's "Terms of Endearment" as Shirley MacLaine's philandering son-in-law. As the years have passed, Daniels has been unable to get his hands on a good, meaty role. Instead, he is in inane comedies such as "Dumb and Dumber."<br /><br />As for this picture, it fails because of the subject matter. At least, the television show brought about a variety of situations. In the film, we have constant slapstick and people turning into monsters as the government is thwarted into capturing the martian-Martin.<br /><br />The part of Mrs. Brown is a perfect example of the non-success of the film. On television, Pamela Britton portrayed a ditsy individual caught up in situations with the martian leaving her perplexed. In the film version, a blond bomb-shell as Brown, tries romantic entanglement.<br /><br />Television star Ray Walston has a small role as a government agent, or is he really that?<br /><br />A very big disappointment for those who enjoyed the television show so much. | 0neg
|
I thought that My Favorite Martian was very boring and drawn out!! It was not funny at all. The audience just sat through the whole movie and didn't laugh at all!!! Not even the kids laughed!! That is sad for a Disney movie!! I thought they could have found somebody better to play the martian rather than Christopher Lloyd!! He was really stupid!! And he was not funny!! I thought the talking suit was really dumb!!! In the original television series the suit doesn't talk and move around!! In my opinion they should not have wasted their time on this movie!! I give it two thumbes down!! Really a waste of time and I would not recommend the movie to anybody!!! Thank You!! | 0neg
|
This movie tries hard, but completely lacks the fun of the 1960s TV series, that I am sure people do remember with fondness. Although I am 17, I watched some of the series on YouTube a long time ago and it was enjoyable and fun. Sadly, this movie does little justice to the series.<br /><br />The special effects are rather substandard, and this wasn't helped by the flat camera-work. The script also was dull and lacked any sense of wonder and humour. Other films with under-par scripting are Home Alone 4, Cat in the Hat, Thomas and the Magic Railroad and Addams Family Reunion.<br /><br />Now I will say I liked the idea of the story, but unfortunately it was badly executed and ran out of steam far too early, and I am honestly not sure for this reason this is something for the family to enjoy. And I was annoyed by the talking suit, despite spirited voice work from Wayne Knight.<br /><br />But the thing that angered me most about this movie was that it wasted the talents of Christopher Lloyd, Jeff Daniels and Daryl Hannah, all very talented actors. Jeff Daniels has pulled off some good performances before, but he didn't seem to have a clue what he was supposed to be doing, and Elizabeth Hurley's character sadly came across as useless. Daryl Hannah is a lovely actress and generally ignored, and I liked the idea of her being the love interest, but sadly you see very little of her,(not to mention the Monster attack is likely to scare children than enthrall them) likewise with Wallace Shawn as some kind of government operative. Christopher Lloyd acquits himself better, and as an actor I like Lloyd a lot(he was in two of my favourite films Clue and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and I am fond of Back To The Future) but he was given little to work with, and had a tendency to overact quite wildly.<br /><br />Overall, as much I wanted to like this movie, I was left unimpressed. Instead of being fun, it came across as pointless, and that is a shame because it had a lot of potential, with some talented actors and a good idea, but wasted with poor execution. 1/10 Bethany Cox | 0neg
|
I saw this bomb when it hit theaters. I laughed the whole time. Why? Because the stupidity of it seemed to have made me go insane. I look back on it and realize there was not ONE funny thing in the whole movie. At leat nothing intentional. It IS awfully funny that Lizzie cn chew a piece of Nurplex and become a gigantic, carnivorous demon...yet her itty-bitty little dress is perfectly intact, despite the fact that she is now hundreds of times larger than she was when she first put it on. Or the kind of movie in which a man can be shocked with a defibulator and only fall unconcious, and return to conciousness without ANY medical attention. And don't let me get started on the ridiculous fate of the "villain" that they decided they needed to create "conflict." Uh huh.<br /><br />To the person complaining about Disney only targetting kids-The raunchy parts of this film seems to disprove that statement. Do we really need Daryl Hannah accusing Jeff Bridges of having kinky video tapes? You do if you're Disney and you're out of ideas for making the movie appeal to the above-8 crowd without writing a more intelligent script! I am thoroughly convinced that Disney pays off the ratings board so it's movies can get away with murder and still get family-friendly ratings.<br /><br />What a waste of the DVD format. | 0neg
|
I think my summary sums it up. I found it inane and stupid. I also saw the ending a mile a way. Everyone is copying that ending anymore when doing a TV/Theater crossover anymore. Sometimes, it's better to let the movie stand alone.<br /><br />Others, its better to forget the movie altogether. This is one of the others.... | 0neg
|
The movie starts little cute. There are a number of revolting scenes. People in toilets. GOOD actors wasted and the original television series has all but ruined here. This did not need to be crude.<br /><br />Forget it. Find the tv show. Disney at new low. | 0neg
|
If this movie had not been labeled a Disney picture, I probably would not have been so disappointed. The nudity was unnecessary and did not add anything. The same can be said for the toilet bowl scene. This is one Disney film that I will not let my four year old nephew watch. | 0neg
|
My ten-year old liked it. For me it was hard to get through it. Christopher Lloyd played it way over the top and the suit was tedious and unfunny. Sorry to see Jeff Daniels in this. | 0neg
|
<br /><br />Cheap-looking and ugly, this film didn't even seem to entertain the kids in the audience, except for one fairly amusing toilet joke. Christopher Lloyd is way past his prime and actually quite tiresome in this role, although the sorry excuse for jokes by the writers don't help. Elizabeth Hurley is embarrassingly amateurish in a supposedly comic role. Jeff Daniels and Darryl Hannah avoid humiliation. There is really no reason to make this movie, especially since it is unavoidable that one will compare it with Robin Williams's often brilliant improvisations in Mork & Mindy.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
So so special effects get in the way of recapturing the interesting relationship between Uncle Martin and Tim O'Hara that we remember from the TV series. And what was with the suit? Annoying! | 0neg
|
The folks at Disney have a lot to explain. First and foremost, why anyone thought this lesser-sitcom material would ever make even a half-decent motion picture. In the kooky 60's teleplay, the unique idea of Martians among us had not yet been given the sophisticated X-Files treatment. Quaint visions of little green men have long since been dispelled by the likes of E.T., CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and ALIENS 1-3.<br /><br />Any charm the property had was mainly due to the endearing relationship created between the late Bill Bixby as Tim and Ray Walston as the unworldly visitor. The conceit that Martians have antenna seemed dopey back then. Now it seems positively idiotic. Yet, Christopher Lloyd's Uncle Martin sports the metallic appendages. In an early shot, the antenna on a sign for the TV station Tim works at is supposed to make us think "martian"! When's the last time you saw a TV with rabbit ears, eh?<br /><br />Disney doesn't trust quaint or relationships and crams this flick with youth-wooing special effects that include a talking space suit named Zoot! Yes, you read that correctly - Uncle Martin's silver space suit speaks. He is supposed to be a real hilarious cut-up! Figure again. I got stretch socks that are funnier than Zoot. Whenever the action lags (and it lags constantly), computer graphics are put into play to liven things up. Tim is here played by the amiable Jeff Daniels, who can't (or won't) do anything to save this floudering mess. Zesty Christine Ebersole brings some comic zeal to her neighbor lady role. Even Ray Walston himself is dragged painfully into the procedings - all to no avail. This alien visitor is dead on arrival.<br /><br />Constant talk of sitcoms turning to screen makes me only hope that the I DREAM OF JEANNIE movie won't feature a talking harem outfit. I pray that Samantha's cat in the movie BEWITCHED doesn't have lines. I live in fear that I LOVE LUCY - THE MOVIE will proudly feature a CG Conga Drum named Bongo.<br /><br />Paging Michael Eisner! Mickey Mouse - take me to your leader. | 0neg
|
We should have been suspicious to discover that with only two minutes to lights out we were the only ones there. Only five others joined before the movie began.<br /><br />There is nothing at all to redeem this movie. The acting is awful (especially Ms Hurley). The script is banal. The effects we've seen a million times. The film direction the worst that we've seen. Meandering and disjointed. No-one laughed including the kids.<br /><br />We left after 25 minutes. It would have been sooner if my wife hadn't gone for a hot-dog!!!<br /><br />Do not waste your money on this film. If there's nothing else to watch at your cinema then buy some drinks, popcorn and hot-dogs and do some people watching. You'll have a much more enjoyable time!!!<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
When I was a kid we always used to be babysat, and we always used to rent a film or see a film at the cinema. This is one of the films we watched. This is one of the stupidest films I've ever seen, I think it might even be a Walt Disney Pictures film! A martian is dropped on earth, turns into a human, befriends a human, and is trying everything he can to get back home. But he is distracted by the wonders of the Earth. The only good comment I can give is the choice of actors, Back to the Future's Christopher Lloyd as the martian, Uncle Martin, Dumb and Dumber's Jeff Daniels as Tim O'Hara, Elizabeth Hurley as Brace Channing and Daryl Hannah as Lizzie. But apart from that it's complete crap. Poor! | 0neg
|
The story is similar to ET: an extraterrestrial run around on earth and tries to come back home. While its stay on our planet, it will create friendly ties with humans.<br /><br />But, unlike ET which exudes drama, comedy, poetry, this movie is only fun. It is indeed a pure Dysney production: its core audience are children & the movie is more more in the visual than in the message.<br /><br />Thus, you will find some funny scenes (the first sighting of the town, a "cosmic" stray toaster) and the casting is experimented, with special mentions to "Doc", who rejuvenates in a "Mac Fly" character, and to Hurley, who seems open to auto-derision.<br /><br />Ice on the cake: the main title is scored by Danny Elfman, and like every other great composer, you recognize his "voice" before he is even credited. | 0neg
|
Why on earth is Colin Firth in this pointless film? Has he really been that strapped for cash?<br /><br />The film isn't clear on what it wants to be about, grief?, exotic places?, ghosts?, a vehicle for Mr Darcy? It's a muddled, muddy mess.<br /><br />There seems to be some sort of idea that Italy must be good, in itself, and that Italian has something to offer as a language - but in the end the girls just want to go back to yankland.<br /><br />There are pointless episodes on the beach, in churches, on busy roads - but what it is all about, or why anybody should care simply isn't clear.<br /><br />There was also a yank woman in the film. It wasn't clear what here job was, but she seemed only to be there to make vapid, inappropriate and maudlin comments to the girl. Was it supposed to be about paedophillia??<br /><br />A pretty dreadful mess, all in all. I gave it 2 rather than 1 because it doesn't have the charm of an utterly ghastly film. | 0neg
|
This is one of those films the British Lottery Fund wastes its money on. The main problem is a rambling script which gets nowhere. The characters are not interesting, the story is conventional and insipid, the only thing of interest is the location: the city of Genoa (Genova in Italian). Having only a superficial acquaintance with Genoa, I had no idea of the intricate alleyways of its Old Town, and that the city was so interesting. I had thought Genoa was dull. I am delighted to say that I have been proved wrong. So from the travelogue point of view, this film has interest. The film contains one splendid performance, by a little girl named Perla Haney-Jardine. She has already made seven films despite being only 12, so she seems determined upon a career as an actress, and judging by her performance in this film, she should go far, as she is a natural and has a great deal of talent. Colin Firth, a reliable and professional actor, was on hand for the filming and when asked to be earnest, he was earnest, and when asked to be anguished, he was anguished. But somebody forgot to give him any worthwhile dialogue. The script is a total shambles. Catherine Keener does exceptionally well in a supporting role, and showing sympathy comes naturally to her, so that everybody would like to have her around (I would like to tell her every time I feel a cold coming on, as I know she would get me a soothing hot drink). So there we have it: Genoa's fascinating narrow alleys, an interesting little girl, and a sympathetic woman. Forget the rest. The older sister played by Willa Holland is such a disgusting character that the fact that the young actress does a good job of being repellent is not exactly the kind of acting tribute she would like to hear, I suspect. The notion that this family go off to Genoa to forget the unfortunate death of the mother is so trite that if we have another film like that, all dead mothers have a right to complain at being exploited. If Michael Winterbottom wanted to make a film about how interesting the old portion of Genoa is, why didn't he just go to the BBC and say he wanted to make a travel film with some mindless celebrity presenter? Why waste money on a feature film which is nothing but a vanity project of idle and meandering vacuity? | 0neg
|
First of all this movie starts out on a really dumb note: A 10-year-old girl, playing around in a moving vehicle, decides it would be funny to cover up her mom's eyes with her hands, and then causes a horrific accident which kills the mom....duh....I am sorry, there is positively no 10-year-old that dumb. The rest of the movie does not get much better. After the death of the mother by the apparent dumbest 10-year-old on the planet, the dad moves the family to Genova, Italy, where he is to teach at a local university, but here is the clincher: he does not speak a word of Italian! Then the little girl has "visions" of mommy (who she killed), and often subsequent night terrors which always, always end by the father holding and coddling her. Then we are forced to watch this family continually get lost and then found and then hug and then cry and lost and then found (followed by of course more hugging and crying) to the point that I was actually wishing for some sort of natural disaster to just wipe all of these vapid, ignorant people off the planet. Do not get me wrong, because I love indies, but an indie about dumb people (and I mean really dumb) is simply ridiculous and pointless. It is really a shame that this movie was based on such insipid characters wallowing in such retarded scenarios, because the locale was interesting. | 0neg
|
Without reiterating what was said above about this movie, I would like to add that I was looking forward to watching this film...the cast/location and the work of the excellent director Michael Winterbottom etc...It had a vague shadow of 'Don't look Now' about the storyline from the beginning. A stay in different surroundings (Italy again) to dim the heartbreak of loss...or perhaps that's how I saw it? So consequently I sat there waiting for the story to unfold and put a spin on what we expect to happen to this family in a foreign European country....and I sat there and sat there....and guess what? nothing actually happens! and I mean nothing!! You are not even given the chance to get into the characters as they are so 1 dimensional and vacuous..You are led to believe from the pace of the movie that something was going to happen to turn the whole film on it's head...The eldest daughters flirtation with the local vespa boys, had great scope to take the movie in another direction, the youngest daughters visions of her dead mother ended up being a fruitless and pointless exercise, the fathers attempts at being seduced by one of his female students felt ridiculous given his age. It felt as if the script had a last recall made where they decided at the last minute to eradicated any guts to the story and went for paring it down to a bare minimum to no effect. When the credits started to roll (unexpectedly) you can't help but feel robbed of your time spent sat watching this pile of rubbish. | 0neg
|
This film is about a family trying to come to terms with the death of the mother/wife by moving to Genova, Italy.<br /><br />The plot of "Genova" sounds promising, but unfortunately it is empty and without focus. The film only consists of a collection of scenes depicting the daily life of the family, such as swimming, taking piano lessons or cooking eggs. Most of such scenes are redundant and tiresome, completely failing to engage viewers emotionally. The ending is very disappointing as it is not spectacular, moving or emotional. I can safely say that I am disappointed and bored by "Genova" The only thing good about the film is the sunny weather and the beauty of Genova. "Genova" can serve as an extended tourism advertisement for the city, but not as a film to be enjoyed. | 0neg
|
I just blew four dollars renting this movie! Why Alliance Atlantis would promote such a poor excuse for a film is beyond me. But even more surprising was the reasonably good reviews that a couple of Canadian newspaper critics gave this film. I'm tired of our media justifying a film simply because it's Canadian and low budget. It's like they expect Canadian films to be lousy, so they give it a good review regardless.<br /><br />Now about the movie: The acting was below average (with the exception of the lead male character, who was actually pretty good). The film quality was poor, which I guess could be expected from the extremely low budget. The script was absolutely horrendous. An example is the story, which revolves around one of the lead characters, a female drug dealer who flirts with one of her clients so that she can recruit him to fix and steal bicycles for her gang, whose only purpose is to randomly destroy SUV's. Supposedly many of her gang members' bicycles are destroyed in these activities (I don't know how she can't afford to just buy new ones, since she is supposed to be this big drug dealing connection from Vancouver to Toronto).<br /><br />Anyway, the point of the story (which isn't revealed until well over halfway through the movie) is that the drug dealer plans to firebomb buildings in the Toronto area to attempt to make houses more affordable - as no one will want to live in the area.<br /><br />- Need I say more.<br /><br />Shame on the Toronto Film Festival for accepting such a film, Telefilm for supporting it, and the Globe and Mail and Georgia Straight newspapers for giving such biased reviews.<br /><br />A film shouldn't get special treatment just because it's Canadian!!!! | 0neg
|
EPSILON, a.k.a. ALIEN VISITOR, is not what I expected. This is a no-budget Australian film with no special effects other than speeded-up film and quick scene cuts. The female alien (who comes over immediately able to speak perfectly accented Australian) can "blip" from place to place or time to time and alter her perception of the flow of time to match the "faster" humans.<br /><br />An elderly grandmother tells her two granddaughters about a story a wandering man told her 40 years before, when an unnamed "She" came to the planet naked and completely disoriented, unable to recognize which star in the sky she came from...She meets a man alone camping in the Australian Outback, apparently bewildering him. She is here by "mistake", and gets angry when she is told she is on Earth. The Earthlings are known as consummate despoilers of the environment and a metaphor for the most insulting thing imaginable to the rest of the universe: those who "breathe the foul air" but do nothing about it, sticking their heads under the sand like an ostrich. In another amusing metaphor, Earthlings are "frogs".<br /><br />From there, it is entirely a film about dialogue, as the perplexed man tries to understand She's peculiar psychology and viewpoints, even as She calls him unintelligent and "quaint". The man begins to realize maybe it's humans who are irrational and not thinking straight. Yet, while waiting to be "beamed up" back home, She sees that this human is not entirely faulty in his thinking and even falls in love with him.<br /><br />The dialogue about perspectives is in spots interesting, but it is all layered with a heavy-handed environmental message and a low-budget feel (there are only two main actors, who blip around various deserted scenes, and the evil despoiling humans on the planet are never seen at all). The environmental message offers no solutions, but paints one or two dire metaphors about what will happen to nature and man if something isn't done. The logic also doesn't hang together: the rest of the universe has "given up" on Earth, yet one space woman caught on Earth by mistake manages to effect some positive change by the conclusion of the movie. What would a battalion of aliens deliberately sent here manage to achieve against pollution and waste? | 0neg
|
<br /><br />Not only do alien visitors look exactly like furry armpitted human woman and not only are alien visitors able to perfectly speak English (with an Australian accent) they ALSO call their stars by the SAME names our Earthly astronomers have given them!<br /><br />And topping all that off, all alien life knows just how mean, evil, wasteful and destructive us humans are. And they're quite willing to tell us just how bad that is.<br /><br />If you ever have the chance to see this movie, don't. Well, unless you suffer from insomnia or the choices are this movie or exploratory surgery without anesthesia.<br /><br />This movie tries to get a moral, ecological point across but only succeeds in making you yawn and pray it ends soon. | 0neg
|
It was 1 a.m. in the morning and I had nothing else to do. Don't judge me... please.<br /><br />We're back in time during the Spanish settlements. A group have made their way onto an island. It doesn't take too long before they encounter a large "reptile", which gobbles up their horse. Soon they're captured by the natives and in order to gain freedom they must kill the "reptile gods." THE CG sucks; it reminds me of the CG of early console video games. The encounters were lame. The only positive thing I have to say about this was the hottie native running around in a skimpy outfit. Otherwise it's just a middling effort. | 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.