text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
I think the biggest failing something can have is to be boring. Bad is actually better than boring. This thing has no breath. It does have the interesting fact of taking place in Cambodia. How many American made films of the 30's take place in Cambodia. Nevertheless, the conflict there is a little hard to figure out. Even the troop movements are a little confusing. What drags it to a resounding halt is the love story. Why those two guys are so totally transfixed on the dippy blonde I don't know. I thought he should continue to use his Zombies (such as they are) and forget all about her. The movie just plods along. The perfect microcosm is where one of the principle characters follows a Cambodian priest through the water to get to the secret place where the hieroglyphics (or whatever) that explain how to turn people into zombies is kept. I thought they would never get there. One guy takes two steps. He stops. He looks around. The other guy hides behind some columns. He takes two steps. He stops. He looks around. The other guy hides behind some bushes. This is the movie in a nutshell. Then there is the bad acting and insipid dialogue. I actually have a lot of patience when it comes to B movies. This one is insufferable. By the way, a more apt title would be Revolt of the Hypnotized. | 0neg
|
I'm working my way through the Horror Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES is one of the movies in the set. I am watching them with my soon-to-be seven-year old daughter, which makes most of these movies a laugh riot.<br /><br />I had high hopes for REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES, after watching White Zombie, which is really the precursor to so much that is the mainstay of zombies in cinema (think Clive Barker's Serpent and the Rainbow and James Bond's Live and Let Die funeral scene, NOT Night of the Living Dead).<br /><br />However, even though the title includes the word "zombies," it is little more than a love triangle, involving anthropologist Armand Louque, who is smitten with Claire Duval; who in turn is taken with his companion Clifford Grayson. What a yawn-fest, my daughter fell asleep half-way through.<br /><br />I had a real hard time deciphering who these people worked for -- the allies or the axis; but, I guess that doesn't really matter.<br /><br />I was shocked to see Bela Lugosi in the credits for this movie; but, of course those were his eyes (from White Zombie) serving as the mind-control device for the zombies. | 0neg
|
Before the release of George Romero's genre-defining Night of the Living Dead, zombies were relatively well-behaved creatures. They certainly had much better table-manners in the old days. But social etiquette aside what thrills did these early zombies offer to the movie-going public? Judging by this film, none whatsoever.<br /><br />The story is about an expedition to Cambodia, whose purpose is to find and destroy the secret of zombiefication. One of the party discovers the secrets on his own and sets about building his zombie army.<br /><br />This film is basically a love triangle with zombies. But seeing as this is a 30's movie, the said zombies are more like somnambulists than the flesh-eating variety we think of today. They seem to respond to mind-control, rather than insatiable appetites. And, quite frankly, the 'revolt' is somewhat underwhelming too. The whole thing is really very dull. Aside from the lack of horror, there isn't any over-the-top melodramatic theatrics to keep us entertained. It seems unlikely that this could've provided much entertainment even 70 years ago. See it if you have to see everything with 'zombie' in the title but otherwise I would advise skipping this one. | 0neg
|
The Revolt of the Zombies is not the worst movie I've ever seen, but it is pretty far down on the list. When an expedition is sent to Cambodia to discover the trick to making zombies after World War I, one of the members decides to use the knowledge for his own evil ambitions. And he succeeds, at least at first. A love triangle complicates the story some.<br /><br />This really was a tedious movie, with horrible acting that made it difficult to tell who were zombies and who weren't. The dialog was little better and the plot was unbelievable (not the zombie part of it but parts related to the "romance"). And while I am not any student or expert on cinematography, the camera work didn't seem to help the film much either.<br /><br />While I have seen a few movies that are worse, this is unlikely to please anyone. It's bad, and NOT in a so-bad-that-it-is-good kind of way. | 0neg
|
"After World War I, an expedition representing the Allied countries is sent to Cambodia to stop the efforts of Count Mazovia in creating a zombie like army of soldiers and laborers. Hoping to prevent a possible outbreak of war due to Mazovia's actions, the group presses through the jungle to Angkor Wat in spite of the perils. The group includes Armand who has his own agenda contrary to the group's wishes," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. <br /><br />Heads up! the zombie make-up department revolted before the cameras started to roll. <br /><br />Also, this "Revolt of the Zombies" has little to do with its supposed predecessor "White Zombie" (1932) *****, which starred Bela Lugosi. If that film's zombies didn't thrill you, this one's certainly won't. A younger-than-usual Dean Jagger (as Armand Louque) stars as a man obsessive with blonde Dorothy Stone (as Claire Duval). A couple supporting performances are good: devilish Roy D'Arcy (as Mazovia) and subservient Teru Shimada (as Buna); however, neither are given enough material to really pull this one out of the dumps.<br /><br />** Revolt of the Zombies (1936) Victor Halperin ~ Dean Jagger, Dorothy Stone, Roy D'Arcy | 0neg
|
Of the many problems with this film, the worst is continuity; and re-editing it on VHS for a college cable channel many years ago, I tried to figure out what exactly went wrong. What seems to have happened is that they actually constructed a much longer film and then chopped it down for standard theatrical viewing. How much longer? to fill in all the holes in the plot as we have it would require about three more hours of narrative and character development - especially given the fact that the film we do have is just so slow and takes itself just so seriously.<br /><br />That's staggering; what could the Halperins have possibly been trying to accomplish here? Their previous film, "White Zombie", was a successful low budget attempt to duplicate the early Universal Studios monster films (The Mummy, Dracula, etc.), and as such stuck pretty close to the zombie mythology that those in North America would know from popular magazines.<br /><br />Revolt of the Zombies, to the contrary, appears to have been intended as some allegory for the politics of modern war. This would not only explain the opening, and the change of Dean Jagger's character into a megalomaniac, but it also explains why the zombies don't actually do much in the film, besides stand around, look frightening, and wait for orders - they're just allegorical soldiers, not the undead cannibals we've all come to love and loathe in zombie films.<br /><br />I am the equal to any in my dislike for modern war and its politics - but I think a film ought to be entertaining first, and only later, maybe, educational. And definitely - a film about zombies ought to be about zombies.<br /><br />Truly one of the most bizarre films in Hollywood history, but not one I can recommend, even for historic value. | 0neg
|
Revolt of the Zombies starts with Armand Louque (Dean Jagger) trying to convince General Duval (George Cleveland) that his mate Tsiang (William Crowell) is a priest who has the power to hypnotise people & render them under his control turning them into mindless zombies (a bit like the people I work with really). Anyway, Tsiang is murdered by Colonel Mazovia (Roy D'Arcy) but fails to gain the knowledge of turning people into zombies. An expedition has been set up by General Duval to hunt for the secret since Tsiang ain't going to tell them much anymore. General Duval heads the expedition along with his daughter Claire (Dorothy Stone) who is engaged to Louque who also comes along. During the expedition Claire dumps Louque for his mate Clifford Grayson (Robert Noland) at which Louque isn't too pleased about. In a way that could only happen in a film Louque finds the secret to turning people into zombies by himself & starts to use his new found power to gain revenge on Claire & Clifford... Co-written & directed by Victor Halperin Revolt of the Zombies has a bad reputation & after watching it I can see why. The script by Halperin, Howard Higgin & Rollo Lloyd all uncredited, has a good central idea but is killed stone cold dead by being dull & as exciting as watching paint dry. Nothing much happens for ages & then nothing much happens afterwards either. How Halperin depicts his zombies is different to that which most modern audiences would consider to be a zombie, these zombies are just brainwashed people & filmgoing audiences would have to wait over thirty years before George A.Romero would define what a zombie is now thought as in Night of the Living Dead (1968). At only about an hour in length Revolt of the Zombies still feels too long. Technically the film is OK considering it was made 70 years ago, the black & white cinematography is adequate although some of the scenes look like they were shot against a photo of the background location. The acting is wooden & largely unimpressive. Revolt of the Zombies might have been hot stuff in 1936 but it hasn't dated well & in 2005 it's an absolute chore to sit through. I believe the film is now public domain as it turns up on lots of ultra cheap DVD compilations & budget labels, but it's still not worth watching no matter how cheap you can get it for. | 0neg
|
With this movie only running 61 minutes and nothing all that good on television, I decided to pop Revolt of the Zombies into the DVD to pass the time. Even while realizing the era from which it was coming, I was sorely disappointed. It started with the oddly upbeat quality of the opening score (what - no brooding music?) and then the rather slow moving opening sequences. Gosh, I figured a movie about zombies - even from the 1930s - would have SOME chills to it (White Zombie, with Bela Lugosi, certainly did) but this had none. Zero. It was scarcely even dramatic (except for the few moments with the burning eyes superimposed on the film to indicate the mesmerization of someone). Like the equally dull King of the Zombies, this movie may be an interesting curiosity to own, but nothing more. | 0neg
|
Revolt of the Zombies is BAD. There is nothing remotely entertaining about the movie. It is dull, lifeless, poorly acted, and poorly scripted. I've often complained that the original Dracula is a little slow for my taste, well this movie makes Dracula look like a roller coaster ride. The 65 minute running time seemed like 165 minutes.<br /><br />The story: An expedition is sent to Cambodia to find the secrets of mind control through "zombification". One man finds the secret and uses it to make the woman he loves marry him. Once this happens, he releases the zombies under his control to horrific consequences. That's it. That's the whole story.<br /><br />For most of the movie, I was trying to figure out where I had seen the male lead. He looked so familiar. I had plenty of time to think this over. Nothing was happening in the movie. Just before the "zombies revolted", it hit me. It was Dean Jagger. I had seen him recently as the General in White Christmas. This is how I "entertained" myself throughout most of the movie.<br /><br />I'm just glad I didn't buy the DVD for this movie. King of the Zombies is on the other side and it's a masterpiece of film making compared with this movie. For what it's worth, I'll give it a 2/10. (I won't go to 1/10 because, believe it or not, I've seen worse.) | 0neg
|
Knowing how old a film is, ought to prepare the viewer for a few things, and, with those things in mind, perhaps the movie'll be more tolerable. So it was when I watched Revolt of the Zombies. The heavy reliance on tedious dialogue and corny movements should be expected, as should the primitiveness (or absence) of special effects in those days. A great deal is asked from the imagination of the onlooker - maybe too much, in this case. And the plot isn't easy to follow: Some zombiefied southeast Asian soldiers in WWI performed very admirably. Although skeptical as to why, if true, the explanation should stay out of the wrong hands, so, off goes a group to archaeologically investigate. The key to long-distance hypnosis is learned by a member of the expedition, who uses it to, among other purposes, temporarily dispense with the beau of the gal for whom he has the hots. To prove his love for her, he gives up his hold on everybody, which he shouldn't have done 'cause, once they're all unzombiefied, many want to kill him so that he'll never control them again. Below average, even with precautionary forethought. Recommended for only the extremely patient. | 0neg
|
The problem with family dramas is that, outside of TV movies on channels like Lifetime, most people don't want to watch them. And the ones that do get watched tend to be sensationalized and about current or topical problems or issues in the news (or recent news). Movies that explain or explore the human condition aren't popular. Particularly with the young crowd that would be Miss Lohan's fan base or the younger crowd that tends to make movies not simply popular but financially successful for studios.<br /><br />The specific problems I had with this movie is the cartoonishness of some of the characterizations. It was a bit much to blame all of the Lohan's character's acting-out (wrecking the car, drug use, etc.) on what her step-father did to her. While not improbable,it's just a bit much to expect the audience to swallow. Additionally, other aspects, such as her giving the young Morman boy, oral sex, or that she would actually make a good assistant to the vet, who coincidentally happens to have a thing for her mother, etc., all these elements just did not really help this movie along. It placed it more in the element of a situation comedy trying one of their "special dramatic episodes" then it did for a fully realized, well-written feature film.<br /><br />When you watch the DVD and listen to the commentary, particularly for the various alternate endings, you can really see all of this is sharp focus. | 0neg
|
I disliked this movie for numerous reasons. Within the first ten minutes of the film, I grew extremely disappointed and came to the conclusion that if this movie was going to salvage itself, for me at least, that it was going to have to pull itself out of the enormous hole it had dug. Unfortunately, that did not occur. The two draws of the movie for me were to see Jane Fonda and Felicity Huffman. I don't know enough about Lindsey Lohan's work to have been interested in what she would bring to the film. Afterward, I just felt disappointed in and for all three of them even though there were "moments" in each of their performances. I imagine that for each of them to find their "moments" was a very difficult task given the fact that there was an amazing lack of character development and uninspired dialog. Although the plot is an interesting one, the movie on the whole is so poorly written, directed and edited that anybody's performance as an actor would suffer and be tainted by it. The disrespectful way in which it dealt with sexual abuse and the trite and insulting viewpoint of small-town America, I think, were the two main reasons why this film failed in hitting it's mark. As one reviewer has noted and I would agree, the movie is almost impossible to market given it's finished form. I suspect that, or at least hope that (for the actor's sakes anyway) there are some real gems on the cutting room floor. Sad for us but if that's true then the actors can take solace in that and feel somewhat good about lending their talents and time to such a flop. Oh yeah and another thing...I wished for just once I could go see an American movie which included the sadly disappearing but wonderfully bucolic settings such as the one in this film where the main characters weren't absentmindedly and/or disrespectfully littering the country side with pop cans, smashed CDs and, other such trash! | 0neg
|
Georgia Rule has got to be one of - if not the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The whole movie has a very surreal feel that made me gasp, "what?" out loud at least 7-10 times throughout its grueling two hour course.<br /><br />Advertised in its trailer as a movie about three generations of women - Jane Fonda as the matriarch, Felicity Huffman as her daughter, and Lindsay Lohan as the rebellious, over- sexed, scantily clad grand-daughter, the viewer thinks this will be a cliché, light, chick-flick about growing up and coming together as a family.<br /><br />Talk about false advertisement at it worst.<br /><br />After many shots of animals doing "funny" things in the background of "pivotal" scenes and not to mention a whole five minutes focusing on an old woman who comes into a doctor's office weekly to have her diaper changed, or the fact that this movie is actually about Lindsay Lohan's character being sexually abused by her step-father, Georgia Rule creates its own genre of cinema : The ungrounded, horribly acted, inappropriate comedy dealing with extremely serious issues in the most awkward, surreal, strange way. If Garry Marshall wanted this movie to be a drama/comedy, then he should have watched The Royal Tenenbaums. Sideways. Junebug. And so on. And so on.<br /><br />The only way I feel I can get a reader to understand the horrific genre that Georgia Rule falls under is to create a hypothetical situation. Say that the movie, The 40 Year Old Virgin, was about the main character being celibate because he was sexually molested as a child. But instead of having the movie take a more dramatic turn, belly laughs and comedy would ensue, with all of the characters' reactions being that of fake, lifeless, human beings pretending to care. <br /><br />Throw in a yellow parakeet, Dermot Mulroney as the flattest, most non-dimensional character that could have been cut completely out of this poorly written script, along with a male character who throws away all of his religious beliefs and morals to be with a trashy, too-tanned girl who shares none of the same interests as he, as well as an an unnecessary car chase scene, unreal moments of characters trying to relate to each other, and you've got Georgia Rule.<br /><br />I found this movie to be an insult to any of those people out there who are struggling filmmakers, screenwriters, actors, editors, etc..who have a lot more talent and aren't getting noticed.<br /><br />Don't see this movie : my rule. <br /><br />And if you must, get sufficiently drunk before hand. | 0neg
|
I have been searching for the right words to describe this film. At first I was inclined to simply skip to more significant matters, as the film does not rise to a level deserving comment.<br /><br />Yet, I stopped, puzzled as to how to describe such stuff and somewhat intrigued by the challenge presented by the question: "What can one say about such a film?" Rubbish? No, its not rubbish, rubbish can be recycled into something useful. Greenhouse gas? No, its not greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases help plants grow large and healthy.<br /><br />Finally, I struck on "Not even bad," a rework of the phrase "Not even wrong" used sometimes in theoretical physics to describe a theory that is hopelessly flawed and not even worthy of correction. That's it then, Georgia Rule: Not even bad. | 0neg
|
I just came from seeing this movie and decided to see what others thought of it. I'm left wondering if these people who give glowing reviews saw the same film! This is potentially a very good story, but it fails to hit the mark. The script is very weak - the plot has so many holes that it would make a great dip net for the fishing scenes. The characters were not well developed and the storyline jumps around so much that I found myself asking the question "How did we get here?" at least a half dozen times during the movie.<br /><br />There was a lack of any chemistry between the cast members. This is probably related to Lindsay Lohan's antics during the filming. It was pretty clear that everyone showed up and did their job, but didn't commit to their roles.<br /><br />This is not a movie worth seeing...go for a walk, play a board game, take a nice warm bath and save your money for something that's worth it! | 0neg
|
This movie was portrayed in the trailer as a comedy. It is an extreme tragedy. It left me sick to my stomach. I hated it. I think if they want to make a movie like this than they should be man enough to reflect the true intentions of the movie in the trailer. I would not have seen this movie if I would have known. I think the trailer should reflect the theme and intentions of a movie. I am tired of it. I really wanted to have a fun comedy and I am extremely disappointed. It has been several days now and I still have a bad taste in my mouth from this movie. I have never been more disappointed in a movie, nor have I ever written a comment on a bad movie. I really think that true deception was involved in this trailer because if they showed the true intention of the movie, no one would have seen it. | 0neg
|
Okay, so the previews to this film only tells you that a rebellious young girl goes to live with her grandmother for the summer in order to straighten out. That is actually not the case! It's about a young rebellious 17 year old girl who reveals a secret and it's up to her mother to believe if she's telling the truth or not.<br /><br />To be honest, I really enjoyed the concept of this movie. They had a really good plot and a really good theme of a love/hate relationship between mother and daughter. I did not however, enjoyed watching Lindsay Lohan's acting. In reality, this movie would have been GREAT if they had someone else, perhaps a better actress. The character of Rachel (Lohan) is a very sexually aggressive person and it sort of reminds us of the real Lindsay so it takes away a lot from the film.<br /><br />I do however, think that if you put Lindsay aside, you will enjoy this film. The ending is pretty great (and sad). | 0neg
|
I haven't seen this, & don't plan to see this movie or any other that includes Lindsay......unless & until "poor little rich girl" straightens out her life for a 2 year period beginning with her most recent arrest in July 2007.<br /><br />In fact, I don't know anyone that has gone to see ANY of Lindsay's recent movies. I rather imagine 2007 will be the high water mark in her movie making career, until she cleans up her act. All of the recent publicity has only hindered her movie making career, if she has any further aspirations to make any more movies <br /><br />Up to this time, movie producers have actively sought Lindsay for roles in their upcoming production. Now, Lindsay will probably have to go to auditions & actually compete for ANY role. Her reputation is currently "poison" & quite possible could have a negative effect on box office ticket sales on any movie she is in.<br /><br />Sooooo....now Lindsay is going to have to deal with "not being wanted".....is she going to be able to handle this?<br /><br />I wonder if even Jay Leno will want to have Lindsay back on his TV Show?<br /><br />All of the foregoing is merely my OPINION. I have no inside information. | 0neg
|
I'm only rating this film as a 3 out of pity because it attempts to be worthwhile. I love to praise a great movie and I'm not biased toward "male" movies. Legally blonde was an excellent film. Georgia Rule on the other hand, was a disorganized, weak, poorly written, unrealistic example of movie making at its worst. by the end of the film I didn't care who was lying or if anything was resolved. <br /><br />The most important thing in a film is a good STORY. This story is weak and never develops (just because the subject matter is deep, doesn't mean the story is good). A good story has dynamic characters. A dynamic character is one that experiences a major character change, and is primed for that change over the course of the movie. In Georgia Rule, the character changes were abrupt and undeveloped. Secondly, there were too many ATTEMPTED dynamic characters. Pulling off a really good dynamic character is a tough job and takes time (you've only got a couple hours in a movie). That means that too many attempted dynamic characters will get too little attention to their personal change. Even if I ignore the poorly written story, and the litter of weak dynamic characters, I can't even say I liked anyone. Every character was a mess. That's fine if your're writing American Beauty but not when you're attempting a dramatic comedy. Georgia was a horrible mother, her daughter was a horrible mother and daughter, and Lohan was a horrible excuse for a human being (no I'm not cutting her any slack because she was molested, crap happens to everyone and we're all responsible for our own actions). The "Dudley Do Right" Mormon kid should have had the guts not to compromise his religion and commitments...and Simon, I mean seriously, what kind of guy lets a 17 year old girl who's been molested just stay over occasionally (unless he's an actor or a politician). This movie is worth watching if you want to remind yourself what good movie making is NOT! | 0neg
|
I am uncertain what to make of this misshapen 2007 dramedy. Attempting to be a new millennium cross-hybrid between On Golden Pond and The Prince of Tides, this film ends up being an erratic mess shifting so mercurially between comedy and melodrama that the emotional pitch always seems off. The main problem seems to be the irreconcilable difference between Garry Marshall's sentimental direction and Mark Andrus' dark, rather confusing screenplay. The story focuses on the unraveling relationship between mother Lilly and daughter Rachel, who have driven all the way from San Francisco to small-town Hull, Idaho where grandmother Georgia lives. The idea is for Lilly to leave Rachel for the summer under Georgia's taskmaster jurisdiction replete with her draconian rules since the young 17-year old has become an incorrigible hellion.<br /><br />The set-up is clear enough, but the characters are made to shift quickly and often inexplicably between sympathetic and shrill to fit the contrived contours of the storyline. It veers haphazardly through issues of alcoholism, child molestation and dysfunctional families until it settles into its pat resolution. The three actresses at the center redeem some of the dramatic convolutions but to varying degrees. Probably due to her off-screen reputation and her scratchy smoker's voice, Lindsay Lohan makes Rachel's promiscuity and manipulative tactics palpable, although she becomes less credible as her character reveals the psychological wounds that give a reason for her hedonistic behavior. Felicity Huffman is forced to play Lilly on two strident notes - as a petulant, resentful daughter to a mother who never got close to her and as an angry, alcoholic mother who starts to recognize her own accountability in her daughter's state of mind. She does what she can with the role on both fronts, but her efforts never add up to a flesh-and-blood human being.<br /><br />At close to seventy, Jane Fonda looks great, even as weather-beaten as she is here, and has the star presence to get away with the cartoon-like dimensions of the flinty Georgia. The problem I have with Fonda's casting is that the legendary actress deserves far more than a series of one-liners and maternal stares. Between this and 2005's execrable Monster-in-Law, it does make one wonder if her best work is behind her. It should come as no surprise that the actresses' male counterparts are completely overshadowed. Garrett Hedlund looks a little too surfer-dude as the naïve Harlan, a devout Mormon whose sudden love for Rachel could delay his two-year missionary stint. Cary Elwes plays on a familiar suspicious note as Lilly's husband, an unfortunate case where predictable casting appears to telegraph the movie's ending.<br /><br />There is also the omnipresent Dermot Mulroney in the morose triple-play role of the wounded widower, Lilly's former flame and Rachel's new boss as town veterinarian Dr. Simon Ward. Laurie Metcalf has a barely-there role as Simon's sister Paula, while Marshall regular Hector Elizondo and songsmith Paul Williams show up in cameos. Some of Andrus' dialogue is plain awful and the wavering seriocomic tone never settles on anything that feels right. There are several small extras with the 2007 DVD, none all too exciting. Marshall provides a commentary track that has plenty of his trademark laconic humor. There are several deleted scenes, including three variations on the ending, and a gag reel. A seven-minute making-of featurette is included, as well as the original theatrical trailer, a six-minute short spotlighting the three actresses and a five-minute tribute to Marshall. | 0neg
|
There's a lot of good that can be said for this cartoon; the backgrounds are rich, lushly colored and full of nicely done art deco details. The animation is up to the usual studio standards of the time, which are unquestionably higher than those of the present day. However, I find it tedious for a number of reasons.<br /><br />The Music: It's definitely not up to Scott Bradley's usual standards. Although it's probably supposed to be evocative of a "Great Gatsby" setting, it ends up being dreary, sleepy, repetitious AND monotonous (repetitious and monotonous are not the same, as Beethoven's 5th Symphony attests). Since most people (including me) tend to close their eyes when they yawn, there's a lot of the visual part of the cartoon that will be missed by the average viewer.<br /><br />The Storyline: I'm not giving away any secrets that aren't already in the plot summary - country good, city bad. This is a common theme in films, both animated and live, from this era. It's a misplaced nostalgia for a nonexistent rural idyll, which, in the present day, is reflected in a similar nostalgia for "values" that never were. | 0neg
|
I don't know about you, but what I love about Tom and Jerry cartoons is the (often violent) interaction between the two characters. Mouse In Manhattan sees Jerry leaving Tom behind to have an adventure in New York, and as far as I am concerned, this one definitely suffers from a lack of cat!<br /><br />As magical as Jerry's exploration of the 'Big Apple' might be for the other T&J fans who have commented here on IMDb, I couldn't wait for this self-indulgent rubbish to end, so I could watch the next cartoon on my DVD.<br /><br />In fact, the only part of the whole episode that I genuinely enjoyed was when Jerry almost 'buys the farm', hanging precariously off the end of a broken candle, hundreds of feet above a busy road. | 0neg
|
I've noticed over the years that when a rock star makes his final album before his death, that album, if it's not his best, is usually prolific in some way and worthy of a listen at least. The album is usually good enough to cement a legacy. However, when it comes to comedians, especially mainstream comics who star in their own vehicles, their final movie is usually God awful. John Belushi had "Neighbors", John Candy had "Wagon's East", Chris Farley had "Almost Heroes", Phil Hartman had "Small Soldiers", and Rodney Dangerfield had this movie.<br /><br />"Back By Midnight", although it may not have been Dangerfield's very last film, is weak in every sense of the word. It wrapped filming in 2002 according to this website, and it's safe to say that it would have stayed on the shelves if Dangerfield was still alive. I have been a big fan of Dangerfield's since I was in my early teens, and it pains me to see how rotten this film was.<br /><br />What amazes me the most is that a number of other talented people took part in a movie with a very weak premise to begin with. Dangerfield, a great comedian who usually played his comic persona on film, is a prison warden who houses a close knit group of inmates. When the owner of the prison, Colonel-Tom-Parker-meets-Sam-Walton billionaire Eli Rockwood (Randy Quaid), cuts funding for the prison, the warden sends a group of inmates to break out of prison, rob Rockwood's eponymous convenience stores of consumer goods, and break back into prison with the loot. By taking what's in the convenience stores, they are (I guess) taking what they believe Rockwood owes them.<br /><br />With this flimsy premise, the movie sputters and stalls frequently. On top of that, the jokes that you think would be this movie's salvation are not even close to funny, not even from Mr. No Respect himself. That is incredibly disappointing too, because you'd expect a movie with Oscar-nominated (!!!) Randy Quaid, Kirstie Alley, Gilbert Gottfried, Ed Begley Jr., Yeardley Smith, and others to be at least a little bit funny. Instead, Quaid plays a character we've seen before in countless other comedies, Alley plays a British heiress with an awful British accent (could this movie not afford an actual British person!?!), and every joke was poorly set up and poorly timed by virtually every member of this ensemble. It was just not a good comedy in any sense of the word.<br /><br />"Back By Midnight" was rated R mainly for language (and one scene of nudity). The irony in this fact is that many of the jokes are so audience insulting that even kids (if you edit out the language) would walk out of this film. The physical gags are also incredibly predictable, especially when Alley's pet monkey torments Quaid's character. When the monkey grabs a pair of scissors and jumps on Quaid's couch, who wouldn't know where that gag was going?<br /><br />Being a direct-to-video comedy, of course I didn't expect any Oscar-winning material on here. The truth is, though, Dangerfield has made some great, timeless comedies before. "Easy Money" and "Back To School" are hilarious still, and were definitely not Oscar-worthy in the slightest. However, there's a difference between making a dumb comedy that's funny, and making a dumb comedy. With the latter kind of comedy, it seems like the filmmakers don't even try, which is precisely the case with this lame excuse for a wasted 90 minutes. Rest in Peace, Rodney, but add this film to your batch of forgettable comedies like "Meet Wally Sparks" (1997) and "The Godson" (1999). This film, dare I say it, is not even worth seeing. | 0neg
|
Put a DVD of this flick in a time capsule, and it will definitely illustrate for future generations a perfect example of one which warrants the minimal rating on a 1-to-10-star scale.<br /><br />Bill Cosby and Ray Romano have been at the top - in ratings and with tens of millions in earnings annually - with their television series'. Yet each has had no success in big-screen offerings. This has also been true for other TV personalities - perhaps because many of the stories which are presented for two hours or so seem more suited to either a 10-minute skit, or at most, the 22 or 23 minutes of drama during a half-hour program.<br /><br />This film, however, doesn't have one single element which would warrant two or three minutes of time on MAD TV, SNL, or anywhere else on a screen or stage.<br /><br />Its origination date is listed as 2002, but release date - to DVD only - is shown as 2004. It also was filmed not long before Rodney Dangerfield's death, so its one redeeming value is that it probably provided at lease a few hundred thousand more dollars for his heirs.<br /><br />I'd never heard of it, but found it when turning-on my set, and frankly became fascinated by it. Some movies are so truly awful that they rate a sort of top rating in reverse - so bad that you can move the dial backwards to a 9 or 10. "Plan 9 from Outer Space" is the best example - and the Bruce Jenner/Village People opus, "Can't Stop the Music," is another.<br /><br />Unfortunately this flick falls short even there. Even if Rodney's earlier work (as well as some of his fellow cast-members') fell short of "Citizen Kane" or "Casablanca," there were many moments of humor and a story providing at least a modicum of interest.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this presentation doesn't seem to possess even a minute or two's worth of such material. | 0neg
|
I must agree with the very first comment: this movie sucks very, very hard. Despite having a very big B-list cast, the cover of this film (for those who aren't watching it on Comedy Central during a weekday which is probably the only exposure this film will ever get) tries to put the blame on Dangerfield but in reality is just a paycheck for every has-been comedian from the '80s. Randy Quaid? Check. Ed Begley, Jr? Check. The voice of Lisa Simpson? She can now say that Maximum Overdrive wasn't her only horrible flick: double check. And so many, many others.<br /><br />The saddest thing about this flick is that it was so lazily written with already-told jokes. Nothing about this movie outside of its existence is funny. You're better off watching paint dry. This is definitely direct-to-video scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel stuff that still believes in the old video adage: throw an old-time star on the cover and you'll get some money back off of the rental. Considering the days of video rental are changing, consider this one of the last examples of putting out garbage.<br /><br />The only use this movie has if you're having trouble falling asleep. It'll get you there. | 0neg
|
Rodney Dangerfield isn't the main character of this movie. He's barely in it. Most of the screen time is dominated by unfunny jokes. One running gag is that a character is named Jerk Off. There are also lots of erection jokes, where the punch line is someone has an erection. This movie is as funny as Kirstie Ally's British accent is convincing.<br /><br />This movie started off like a weak action movie: five minutes of back story and then bam! Unfunny jokes. But, aside from the terrible writing, the movie is also poorly directed and the acting is terrible. Also, this movie does the old bad comedy cliché of having lots of well-known B-movie actors. Harland Williams, Gilbert Godfried, Randy Quaid, and Phil La Mar. These are just some of the people that spend more time on the screen than Rodney, even though he's billed as the main character. Don't be surprised to find this movie at a drug store selling for five bucks. Even that is too much. | 0neg
|
When I was a kid in the 50's and 60's anything connected with Disney was by definition great. What happened? They are able to get any actors and actresses they want, the best of their time. But somehow Disney manages to screw things up in spite of their abundant resources.<br /><br />Disney can afford the best writers, the best producers and directors, but still...they screw things up! This movie is crap. The sad thing is that I suspect Disney in their arrogance does not even know when a movie is good or bad.<br /><br />It is only due to the talent of the actors that I can even give it a 3 of 10. | 0neg
|
Tim (Gary Daniels) wants desperately to break into serious television reporting. When a job he begged for goes awry, he is fired. His beautiful but empty girlfriend (Elizabeth Hurley) says sayonara, too. Coming home, Tim is startled to discover his house has an uninvited visitor (Christopher Lloyd) from the planet Mars! Calling him Uncle Martin, Tim soon tries to help his new friend navigate life on earth. But, Martin gets in trouble wherever he goes, from the bathroom to the laundry room and more. Lovely Lizzie (Daryl Hannah) finally sees an opportunity to make time with Tim but the course of true love does not run smooth in this case, either. Soon everyone in television is stalking Tim, hoping for a story about a true alien. What's a man to do? For those who loved the old television show of the same name, with Bill Bixby and Ray Walston, this film is not worthy to tie the proverbial boots. Its truly, undeniably awful, with no plot and a reliance on supposed special effects which fall flat, too. Daniels is okay as the earthling but Lloyd is simply terrible as the alien, overacting up a storm. The rest of the cast is adequate, as are the costumes, set, and production details. Even if your children see the cover and beg for this film, convince them to pick out another flick at the video store. Be assured, kids and adults will find this movie a colossal bore, so opt for A Night at the Museum or Around the World in 80 Days instead. | 0neg
|
This was yet another big screen outing for a US TV show from the sixties It is amusing enough but was very much to formula. Intelligent Martian lands on Earth and meets the not too bright humans, in his view.<br /><br />The usual wackiness ensues with the human, Bridges, eventually bonds with him and helps him to get home. Along the way he also gets the girl, Hannah.<br /><br />This is a nice outing for some pleasant Hollywood stars who I had not seen for a while.<br /><br />Pleasant enough to pass some spare time if you have not got anything better to view. | 0neg
|
We went into this movie because my husband had enjoyed the original version of `My favourite Martian'. We had our 6 year old daughter with us. She wanted to leave halfway through the movie which was fine with both her parents! The parts we did see were only occasionally humorous, mostly either too silly or gross. I would expect that this movie might appeal to kids between 9-12, if that. It's definitely not suited for younger children. From what I've heard the original series was by far superior and if you are going to "relive the past" you'll probably be disappointed. | 0neg
|
Shazbot, is this embarrassing. In fact, here's a list of 100 that makes up the embarrassment: 1.) a failed comeback for Christopher Lloyd. 2.) Jeff Daniels basically playing the same role he played in the live 101 Dalmatians remake which wasn't too juicy to begin with. He sure has a funny way of promoting his Purple Rose Theatre... 3.) Disnefluff. 4.) another disappointing reminder that Wallace Shawn is to Disney what Jet Li was to Bob Hoskins in Unleashed. 5.) Ray Walston, the original martian from the TV series, played a bit part (read "cameo") in this flick and died two years later of lupus. Coincidence? 6.) awful special effects. Seriously - awful. 7.-100.) that damn talking, farting suit voiced to an annoying degree by Wayne Knight ("Newman!"). My favorite scene? HA! HA ha, ha! Ha ha ha ha ha... Whew!... Good one. You - You're a joker. Okay, let's wrap up this review with a moment of silence for this franchise's agonizing death, and if you would like, you can say a quick prayer that Disney doesn't forget this travesty and do something silly like a movie adaptation of "Mork and Mindy" starring Tim Allen......................................................... | 0neg
|
There is no possible reason I can fathom why this movie was ever made.<br /><br />Why must Hollywood continue to crank out one horrible update of a classic after another? ( Cases in point: Mister Magoo, The Avengers - awful! )<br /><br />Christopher Lloyd, whom I normally enjoy, was so miserably miscast in this role. His manic portrayal of our beloved "Uncle Martin" is so unspeakably unenjoyable to be almost criminal. His ranting, groaning, grimacing and histrionics provide us with no reason to care for his character except as some 1 dimensional cartoon character.<br /><br />The director must have thought that fast movements, screaming dialogue and "one-take" slapstick had some similarity to comedy. Apparently he told EVERY ACTOR to act as if they had red ants in their pants.<br /><br />Fault must lie with the irresponsibly wrought script. I think the writer used "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" as an example of a fine comedy script. As manic as that 1963 classic is, it is far superior to this claptrap - in fact - suddenly it looks pretty good in comparison.<br /><br />What is most sad about this movie is that it must have apparently been written to appeal to young children. I just am not sure whose children it was made for. Certainly no self-respecting, card-carrying child I know!<br /><br />If they HAD to remake "My Favorite Martian", why didn't they add some of the timeless charm of the original classic? <br /><br />Unfortunately, IMDB.com cannot factor in "zero" as a rating for its readers, that is the only rating that comes to mind in describing this travesty.<br /><br />One good thing did come from this movie, the actors and crew were paid - I think. | 0neg
|
This is the third parody of the scary movies and hopefully the last. This time the spoof is mainly on The Ring, Signs and 8 Mile for some weird reason. In my opinion this movie was very pointless and unnecessary and not even funny. I laughed maybe three times and that is not enough for a comedy. I really enjoyed the first two but this one was just plain dumb. If your jokes consist of corpses getting beat up and people constantly throwing stuff at each other then this movie is for you. In my opinion, if your smart enough stay at home and save your money and please stop making these kind of movies, they just keep getting worse 3/10. | 0neg
|
You could say that the actors will make a movie, but this clearly proves that statement wrong. Most of the characters in this film lack anything to hold on to. They play the part of cardboard cut outs being moved about in predictable and uninteresting ways. The story is very simple. It could be summed up in a few words, but I'll hold back in case anyone reading does want to see this film.<br /><br />I had to fast forward the parts where Jack showed us how to be an obnoxious eater. I'd have to say that 70% of this film revolved around cooking, eating, or getting ready to eat. Quite frankly, I'd rather not spend my time watching Jack chew noisily with an open mouth. Personally, I could have done without the footwear references and jokes that pepper the first half of the film too.<br /><br />Outside of my own personal dementia, the film really lacked anything worth it's time. There were countless scenes and camera shots that felt like it was dragging. When something happens, the reactions of the characters are vague and dry.<br /><br />Best not to look this one up. | 0neg
|
The movie was watchable while Nicolson was on the screen. However, I had to fight against passing out from boredom when the film depended on Meryl Streep to carry scenes without Jack; she was as bland as could be. The relationship between the characters was nothing special; these characters have been portrayed before -- and much better. It felt like a based-on-real-life scenario in the absolute worst sense: 90% of daily life is boring, and not worth writing about or watching. Why Ephron felt her life and relationship with Carl Bernstein was interesting enough to write about escapes me. Perhaps she wrote it as therapy -- for many writers, putting an episode from their life on paper is cathartic. Fine: but then why anyone in Hollywood felt this story was worth filming remains a mystery to me. | 0neg
|
This should be a great film... Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson co-starring as two newspaper writers. Mike Nichols directing. Uh uh. It's dull dull dull! Pointless and predictable! Slow and unfocused!<br /><br />It's a cookie cutter 'boy meets girl, boy marries girl, boy has affair, girl leaves boy' story. Now theres an original concept! After squirming through two hours (was it only two? It felt like six.)I wasn't sure whether it was a comedy, a romance, a tragedy or a soap opera. It was done in 1986. I'm sure all of us did things sixteen years ago that we rather would forget. I hope the damage to the reputations of Streep et al is beginning to heal and that the emulsion on the master is beginning to fade. It's not that it's such a bad picture. It's just that it's such an un-good one. | 0neg
|
I saw this film at its New York's High Falls Film Festival screening as well and I must say that I found it a complete and awful bore. Although it was funny in some places, the only real laughs was that there appeared to be o real plot to talk about and the acting in some places was dreadful and wooden, especially the "Lovely Lady" and the voice of the narrator (whom I have never heard of) had a lot to be desired. J.C.Mac was, I felt, the redeeming feature of this film, true action and grit and (out of the cast) the only real acting. I am sure with another cast and a tighter reign on the directing, this could have been a half decent film. Let us just hope that it is not sent out on general release, or if you really want a copy, look in the bargain bin in Lidl. | 0neg
|
I watched mask in the 80's and it's currently showing on Fox Kids in the UK (very late at night). I remember thinking that it was kinda cool back in the day and had a couple of the toys too but watching it now bores me to tears. I never realised before of how tedious and bland this cartoon show really was. It's just plain awful! It is no where near in the same league as The Transformers, He-man or Thundercats and was very quickly forgot by nearly everyone once it stopped being made. I only watch it on Fox Kids because Ulysses 31 comes on straight after it (that's if mask doesn't put me to sleep first). One of the lesser 80's cartoons that i hope to completely forget about again once it finishes airing on Fox Kids! | 0neg
|
...though for a film that seems to be trying to market itself as a horror, there was a distinct lack of blood.<br /><br />There was also a distinct lack of skilled directing, acting, editing, and script-writing.<br /><br />Jeremy London put in one of most appalling performances I've ever seen - his "descent into the maelström" of madness is achingly self-aware and clumsy. Oh look at him twitch! Oh look at him drink strong spirits! Oh look at him raise his brow, and cock his head at a jaunty angle! Oh look at his unwashed, greasy dark hair! Oh listen to his affectedly husky voice! He must be a tortured artist/writer/genius! Oh, yes, out comes the poet-shirt - it's another boy who thinks he's Byron. (Or Poe.) Oh for the love of... did someone give this guy a manual on "How To Act Good" or did they just pull him out of a cardboard box somewhere, the defunct little plastic toy-prize in a discontinued brand of bargain-bin cereal. Okay, that was a stupid line - but that's only because London's performance has melted my brain with its awfulness.<br /><br />Katherine Heigl is cute, and very briar rose, but has yet to grow into her acting shoes in this film - she delivered her lines like she was being held up, in fact, her whole performance was very wooden, her poses as stiff as her lines - who knows, perhaps she was just reacting to, and trying to neutralise, Jeremy London's flailing excesses, but if that's the case, she takes it too far.<br /><br />Notable is Arie Verveen as Poe - while his character's role is confused, he delivers the best performance of the piece. He, quite simply, looks right, but it's more than that - he has some sort of depth, I believed that he had a life beyond the dismal two-dimensional quality of the rest of the characters. Huh, maybe it's just because I like Poe, and could thus just let my mind wander and invent while he was on screen - whatever, he had an interest factor otherwise missing.<br /><br />The rest of the characters are a faceless blur - there are all the usual caricatures: the perky blonde best-friend who's a bit of a floozy; the smitten local cop who's a bit of a dork; the protective older man who perhaps has too much un-fatherly interest in our heroine; the scheming old witch, etc., etc., yawn, yawn. <br /><br />As with the 'distinct lack of blood for a horror movie' issue, none of the themes that they mention (and that London's character mentions - so scathingly - in his attack on Poe's writing) are followed through on. As another reviewer said - there was potential here: murder, incest, - genuinely shocking stuff, but instead they skirt away from the issues, and cut away from the violence (a raised candlestick swinging through the air - closing in on it's victim - then---cut to black! This is fine in a Noirish traditional horror, indeed, it's expected, and is fondly received when it happens - it's a dear convention, especially when accompanied by fake lightning bolts and intense Siouxie eye makeup - but in 'Descendant' it just comes across as clumsy, or as though the editor got queasy at the last minute and cut it out.) This could have either been a very tense psychological thriller - the horror of palingenesis/delusion/madness - or a simple (and fun) slasher movie: it tries to be both, or neither (something new and exciting!), but either way it fails dismally. The only horror element of this entire movie is it's epic dullness.<br /><br />I think the editor (if there was one at all) must have been drunk when s/he chopped this thing up - there are awkwardly foreshortened scenes; scenes that appeared to be out of order (but that could have just been the poor script). LIkewise the director & cinematographer - there were some very strange shots and framing that I think were meant to be tributes to Hitchcock or Browning, but just ended up looking silly (again, fine in a noir, but this was trying to be something else.)<br /><br />The whole thing perhaps may have been funny (in that way that previous reviewers have mentioned - "OMG how did this get made?!?") if I had been in the mood for some trash- bagging, unfortunately for me I had settled on the couch, with the lights down low, with the express intention of scaring myself silly - this is a very poor film, and I'm afraid I can't recommend it to people, not even for laughs.<br /><br />Please, please, don't waste your time or money on this - either borrow a real horror/thriller film, or find yourself a copy of Poe's fantastical tales, either way, you'll have a far more enjoyable and frightening night than you could ever hope to achieve with this rubbish. | 0neg
|
I don't usually comment, but there are things that need to be said. Where to start...<br /><br />The acting, on Jeremy London's part was horrible! I didn't think he could be so bad. The plot could have been good, had it been well directed, along with a good solid performance from the lead actor. Unfortunately, this is one of those movies you read about and think it has great potential to be entertaining, but get disappointed from the start. <br /><br />Well, at least I got good laughs. I wouldn't waste my time if I were you. | 0neg
|
The Film must have been shot in a day,there are scenes where you can see the camera reflections and its red pointer,even the scenery's green light that blends with the actors!!!The plot and the lines are really awful without even the slightest inspiration(At least as a thriller genre movie).Everything that got to do with Poe in the movie,has a shallow and childish approach.The film is full of clise and no thrilling.If you want to watch a funny b-movie for a relaxing evening with friends then go for it you will enjoy it (As I Did) but there's no way to take this film seriously! | 0neg
|
actually, it was pretty funny... in a "god, how the hell did this movie get made" kind of way. if you life making fun of movies... which i kinda do... go ahead and watch it... but if you're actually thinking "is this a good movie?" eff off.<br /><br />this movie sucked from the very beginning scene with the worst acting i've ever seen in any movie.... usually they get five minutes into it before you realize "this movie might suck".. but no, you know right off the bat. this movie talks about edgar allen poe... never tried to explain it though, to people who haven't memorized poe's life story... so i don't know if any of what was said is fact.<br /><br />this movie is about a writer "ethan poe" hookin up with his cousin "ann".... they're both descendants of edgar allan poe... or are they?!? apparently, people give a what their ancestors did. this guy ethan poe is actually ethan "usher", who is supposed to be descendants from the story "the house of usher" that was written by edgar allen poe. ann's brother shows up sometimes to try to rape her... ann's also being stalked, at one point in the movie, by three different people on the same street (seriously, three... they're like right behind her glaring at her and she doesn't even realize). the characters that are being murdered throughout, show up at the end to try to save the day.... but they can't. at the end, ann shoots ethan while he's trying to kill her best friend. of course, before she shoots him she has to scream out "nevermore!" this movie should be seen nevermore! | 0neg
|
This is surely one of the worst films ever made. Each scene is painful. You will groan at the flimsy attempts at humor, the awkward camera work, the sexism and racism, the ridiculous story line, the wooden acting. Poor Joan Bennett; she is the only one in the movie who is not an embarrassment. In all, dreadful. | 0neg
|
I have to say I hated this movie. I don't like to say that because Gerard Butler is in it. About a half an hour of boring conversation, sorry to all who actually care about the plot, I started fast-forwarding to Gerry's scenes. I really don't know the ending, I was that bored with it. If Gerry wasn't in it, I probably either done one of two things: fell asleep or turned it off, but Gerry is the bright light of this movie, as he is with most of his earlier movies. If you're a fan of Gerry's don't worry, he's as adorable and precious as he always is, but if you actually want to watch the movie for the plot, good luck because you'll need it, either that or lots of coffee or soda to keep you awake! <br /><br />4/10...and that's just because the casting director had the sense to put Gerry in this movie, even though they had no idea of how to spell his name! | 0neg
|
I love Zombie-Movies and I love amateur-productions. And Meat Market 2 starts really promising with a nice homage to Fulci´s Classic "Zombi".<br /><br />So I leaned back and waited to be impressed. Okay, some of the makeups are great for such a no budget movie and some actors (the vampirelady and the cook) really stand out, but else there´s nothing.<br /><br />I didn´t expect a new Romero here but there is not one sequence in the whole movie which has even a little bit of suspense or shock value. The director sure knows how to stage body rippings and interesting eating habits, but now (after two parts) it´s time to learn something more.<br /><br />In MeatMarket2 Gore rhymes with bore - for me that´s not enough - sorry.<br /><br />** out of ***** | 0neg
|
About the worst movie in distribution right now! I love zombie movies and saw this in the used rack so I thought why not? Oh my god a shame to zombie movies and fans to the genre! Whoever made this movie needs to put away your camcorder and go to film school! There are so many gore hounds out there who have put time and effort into their films and they have something that this film doesn't dignity. I know it what it takes to make films and I'm sure there was a lot of money and time spent in making Meat Market but none of that money and time went in to making it good. You need actors, a script, a real camera, invest in some books on how to make independent films. I don't know how you got a DVD release but whoever did that is either a really good friend or banging their head on the wall. In gore films it is quality not quantity, the effects are weak! I was so angry that this is actually in stores and that I couldn't get my money back. Please if you have seen this film write here and put an end to shlock. I know I'm being very harsh, I only had 10 lines so I'm trying to get to the point. | 0neg
|
This film was the recipient of the 1990 Academy award for Best Animated Short Film. Over the last few weeks, I have seen dozens of the nominees and recipients of this award from the last 30 years and I really think that this film might just be the worst of them all--yet it wasn't just a nominee but it won!! I assume that 1989 must have just been a horrible year for the genre.<br /><br />The film shows a group of characters that look a bit like super-skinny Uncle Festers. The appear to be simple articulated figures who are moved using stop motion animation. All are identical--with the same faces, bodies and clothes. The only difference is that each has a different number drawn on their backs. They are all standing on a large platform that is suspended, as if by magic, in space. Each has a pole and their is also a box on the platform. The platform begins tilting slightly and in response the men move about in an effort to balance the platform. This goes on and on and on and on for the longest time. The only relief from this tedium is when one of them acts rather nasty towards the end, but it just isn't enough to make this fun to watch in the least. Aside from passable stop motion animation, this short offers nothing of interest to me....NOTHING.<br /><br />By the way, the great short KNICK KNACK also came out in 1989 and I have no idea why it was not among the nominees. It was a GREAT short and was far better than any of the nominees that year or the year before. Perhaps Pixar's success in previous years resulted in a bias against them, but KNICK KNACK is so clever and so funny it seems almost criminal to have ignored it. Could Pixar have not entered it? This seems unlikely. | 0neg
|
This movie was horrible, simply put. It was so bad I registered with IMDb to warn you of its dangers.<br /><br />I am a campy horror film expert, per se. I have watched "Redneck Zombies", "House of the Psychotic Women", "Slumber Party Massacre II" and many others. I know my schlock. And I know this movie sucks.<br /><br />Three fourths of the film is comprised of scared individuals running from one side of the screen to the other. When they are not running, they are spouting non-sequitur lines, devoid of emotion or motivation. When the actors begin to be acceptable, the direction falls to pieces. There were so many jarring low-angle shots; I figured Leif Jonker had a 3 foot tall tripod. He used what I call the "Leif Maneuver" several millions times: that is, zooming out from an object of interest like an amateur. Apparently the film crew couldn't get up early enough to film a sunrise, so they filmed a sunset... and played it in reverse. With direction this lazy, you are actually impressed with the final gory scene. The only thing you can figure is that the last five minutes was filmed before the first eighty-five minutes.<br /><br />If you want a good (bad) gory movie, rent "Riki-Oh" or the foundational "Dead Alive." If you are a schlock buff, and are looking for a challenge, give "Darkness" a go.<br /><br />Quote o' the movie-<br /><br />Vampire: It's die time! | 0neg
|
Yes, I know I'm one of the few people longing to trample this movie into the dust of oblivion.So let me me tell you why I feel this way. In truth,had it been advertized as a Zombie film or the like,I might have enjoyed it.But right now,I'm totally speechless.<br /><br />*SPOILER...Though I'm not sure what's to spoil* Let's start with the first HUGE flaw. If I did not know that the movie is called "Darkness - The VAMPIRE Version" and had I not seen some sequences where some individuals seem to be sucking blood, I would not have seen the connection with Vampires. I mean, FANGLESS???? Give me a break!!!<br /><br />Second bad point: what's with the Metal? It appears that all young people, but mainly those so-called "vampires", are into various kinds of Metal,judging mainly by their shirts! Don't get me wrong, I've been into the more extreme forms of music for almost 15 years, but nobody 's going to scare me by showing me some ridiculous teenagers in Iron Maiden (of all bands!!!) T-shirts running around,pretending to be Vampires! "Pathetic" is the only only word that I could use here.<br /><br />Third weakness: the actors. Wait a minute. WHAT actors?! You mean the director's wooden friends! Words would be a waste here.<br /><br />Yes, alright, the movie is very gory, but what difference does that make? It WOULD have been a strong point and something to enjoy if the "briliant" director had not chosen to create an ARTIFICIAL vampire topic in this movie. I wanted to see Vampires,but was treated to some stupid looking kids I would have loved to use my baseball bat on. The Film-makers should simply have advertized the movie saying "cheap B-grade horror with no plot but a lot of gore" !!!<br /><br />This movie is blasphemy against the whole concept of Vampirism. And it makes me sick. | 0neg
|
When I borrowed this movie from a friend (thankfully I did not buy it) on the package (which truly looked bad and ugly) was printed "The ultimate vampire horror". After watching it I thought that the marketing campaign was probably more expensive than the film itself. The "story" begins when a teenager (surprise!) is chased by some vampire/zombie-creatures.<br /><br />Lighting, sound and everything reminded me of my first attempt to make a holiday-video on a ten year old VHS-system if not worse. I gave the movie a 2 out of 10 and only because the promo-T-shirts looked kind of cool. I don't want to dis' film-students or splatter-movies generally but I've seen Braindead and I've seen a 20-dollar-budget movie from students that was ten times better than this crap. | 0neg
|
<br /><br />I am a big-time horror/sci-fi fan regardless of budget, but after watching countless horror movies late night on cable and video, this has to be the worst of all movies. With bloody special effects (what looked like a roast covered in fake blood or ketchup that kept being shown over and over again) and people running around screaming from left, then to right, then back again. It should have stayed with the beginning convenience store scene and stopped there and been 15 minutes. Instead, it is dragged out very long. It is very, very x5 low budget. Many scenes were way, way too long. Narrator sounded very amateurish like a random person out of junior high was talking. This is the only movie to rate lower in my opinion than Manos, Red Zone Cuba, Benji,and Godzilla vs. megalon despite their higher budgets. 10 snoozes, try to stay awake through whole movie in one setting or better yet, avoid it like you would an undead brain-eating mob. The Why-Did-I-Ever-See-This-Piece-Of-Zombie-Dung-Blues. Epitome of nauseatingly bad made movies etc..ad infinitum. -infinity/10 | 0neg
|
I found Darkness to be just too DARK. It had a kind of cool idea and some ambitious ideas, not bad action scenes and a few splashy moments to make you go UGH! BUT, it was underlit to the point of confusion. You don't really know what is always going on in the dark scenes and for a film that is shot on Super 8 Film, you already have all that nasty grain to deal with. As with Nathan Schiff movies, it's just too much. Director Leif Jonker seems to want to make an original film, but he lacks the know-how to do it. The camera is never pointed in the right place, lack of fundamentals such as how to shoot simple dialogue scenes and how to light a movie hurt as well. The actors are all pretty uneven and hammy. But despite these negatives, the music is good, the gore is plenty and ranges from silly putty to really good appliances. Is this a classic like it says? Is it worthy of the two discs worth of praise? NO. But it is a good first try. Now if these guys would stop patting themselves on the back about this movie (from what I understand here the only one they have ever finished) for a while and try again, they may do better. | 0neg
|
A small town is attacked by a horde of bloodthirsty vampires. The only hope is a lone avenger and a group of ragtag survivors.<br /><br />Released in 1993, "Darkness" garnered something of a cult following upon release. It's easy to see why-it's loaded (and I mean freaking loaded) with gore, and it's energy and enthusiasm, like that found in other no-budget cult horror flicks like "The Dead Next Door" and "The Children of Ravensback", is actually rather infectious.<br /><br />While that may be true, that's sadly not enough to save it. The film was shot on a Super 8, so the image is grainy and dark, making things very difficult to see (it would have been great if it had obscured the protagonists dreadful mullet.) Also grating is the soundtrack, made up of annoying Casio Keyboard and even more annoying Death Metal (seriously, what is it with these no budget horror flicks and bad Death Metal?) While one isn't expecting Oscar worthy performances, the acting is still strictly amateur hour, as the actors sometimes seem almost confused instead of frightened or threatened.<br /><br />In the end, I'm sure fans of no-budget gorefests will love this. Everyone else though, will wish there was a little more meat on the ribs. | 0neg
|
"Darkness" was entertaining to some degree, but it never seemed to have a plot, lacking one more so than other films that have been accused of this detriment; i.e. "Bad Taste". It started off really good, with a man running from something. It was very creepy for these first few minutes, but after a time the film just became entertaining on the level of gore, which was hard to make out at some points due to poor lighting and horrible recording quality anyway. The film was hard to believe because of the juvenile acting, which most of the time, seemed like some friends talking to a video camera, making lines up as they went. That, with a lack of any plot whatsoever, made it look like the film was started without, and ended without, a script of any kind. As said before, gore was this film's only drawing point, which much of the time was hard to make out. | 0neg
|
First of all, the actor they have to play Jesus has blue eyes... half the actors they have playing Jews have blue eyes. Aren't there enough brown-eyed actors out there? Jesus being depicted as having blue eyes is one of my pet peeves. He was a full-blooded Jew! Second of all, what is it with old English-language movies that are supposed to take place in non-English-speaking countries, and everybody has English accents? (Another example is David Lean's "Dr. Zhivago".) Aren't there enough either Jewish actors or actors who can do a Israeli accent? The movie often is not true to the Scriptures, and so seems to doubt the legitimacy of Jesus's claim to be the Messiah. In the bible, when Jesus is baptized by John, a voice comes from heaven saying "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22). In the movie, John the Baptist says this! The screenwriter seems to be trying to portray the believers as crazy, as well. For example, in the bible, the angel Gabriel tells Mary she will become pregnant with the Son of God (Luke 1:26-38), but in the movie, we do not see or hear any angel - Mary appears to be talking to a moonbeam, and when Mary's mother hears her talking to someone and peeks in on her, she doesn't hear or see anyone either. Also, in the movie, when Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees in the Temple in Jerusalem, he says, "You shall not see me here again, not until you learn to cry, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord', for I and my father are one and the same." The correct line (Matthew 23:39 and Luke 13:35)is "You will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" Period. Jesus never claimed to be God. The movie cuts out a lot of important parts (the Sermon on the Mount is very expurgated), but then spends a lot of time on stuff that isn't even in the bible (a whole scene with Mary Magdalene talking with a john). It seems like the screenwriter, instead of wanting to do a movie version of the Scriptures, wanted to make a movie about what he thinks might have really happened behind (and between) the scenes. The movie has one gem though - during the scene where Jesus tells the parable of the Prodigal Son, at Matthew the tax collector's house, I had tears streaming down my face. It is the best movie I've seen about Jesus's ministry (but that isn't saying much, because the others are just terrible). "Jesus Christ Superstar" is my favourite movie about Jesus's last days ("The Passion of the Christ" is way too graphic), though I like how "Jesus of Nazareth", instead of just ending with Jesus's death, continues on and shows his resurrection. | 0neg
|
This is one of the worst films I've seen in years!! You could randomly pluck 5 people off the streets and they could act better than anyone in this film. Absolute waste of time watching it. I only gave it a 2 as I like gory films but this is just plain rubbish. The acting (and I use that term VERY loosely) is abysmal, someone please tell me that the 5 main actors in this were making their first ever film?? Don't waste your time watching this. Hostel was a better film by some way. I cannot believe that someone has spent money making this, I hope for the producers sake it only cost $50,000 to make - it looks like a school project, made by kids who haven't got a clue. Did this even make it to the cinema?? | 0neg
|
First of all, this is a low-budget movie, so my expectations were incredibly low going into it. I assume most people looking at the info for this movie just wanted a bloodfest, and essentially that's all it is.<br /><br />Plot? There really is none. It's basically Saw but in China and a whole hell of a lot worse. Cast? There is none, period. Special Effects? Absolutely awful in my opinion... There were cutaways and the blood was often completely unbelievable because of amounts, splatter, color, texture, etc.<br /><br />I believe the purpose of this movie was supposed to be a brutal, shock film. Now it had some great potential on a bigger budget but poor scripting, poor dialogue, awful acting, what seemed like camcorder video shots, and just plain unbelievable "gore," made this movie truly awful.<br /><br />There are movies worth taking a chance against some reviews, even "b-rate" movies deserve some opportunities (blood trails for example was the most recent I saw against reviews that was worth it), but this was simply awful. I hope that people considering this movie read my comment and decide against it.<br /><br />I'm all for brutality and shock, but the overall unrealism and truly awful acting makes for an awful experience. Save your time/money and chance something else, you won't be disappointed. | 0neg
|
This is the kind of movie that's so extremely bad that you cant stop watching it because you keep telling yourself that 'it cannot continue to be this crappy all the way to the end. It just cant'. You know, 'worse than Jaws 4'-kind of bad.<br /><br />I honestly think I've only seen ONE movie that was worse than this, and then we're talking religious crap about how you'd end up in hell for lying or watching football.<br /><br />Gore? Indeed and lots of it. Well made gore? No way.<br /><br />The acting is beyond bad and all the lines are lousy clichés. Same goes for the storyline which only really consist of sex, blood and violence, like so many other gore movies.<br /><br />If you're hoping for a mix between Ichi the Killer and August Underground
keep looking. You wont find it in Live Feed. | 0neg
|
just watched it, me and my better half could not believe how awful and badly acted it was. If anyone else thinks its good then you must be easily pleased. I actually gave up a night out to watch this, its all been done before. IE. hostel springs to mind, but at least that did not make you cringe with the bad acting and lack of story line, same old stuff, re-hatched,i read so much about this film, i even recommended it to my mates, my fault,someone said it was good! no more gory,horror or reeling back in disgust than your average "scary movie" it has to be said, please don't bother with this movie. get mary poppins. now thats scary! I'm off out now, go to the cinema and watch something scarier than this, little miss sunshine maybe | 0neg
|
I'm all for a "bad" horror movie but this was just a pile of dog sh!t! How anyone can call this movie cool or decent is beyond me. If you like rushed editing to cover the special effects, bad acting and a bad script then go for it! There was no suspense whatsoever and the gore factor was laughable because it was so fake. I'll take Hostel or Wolf Creek over this pile any day. My partner gave up after about 20 minutes, she knows a stinker when she sees one. I on the other hand stupidly sat through the whole movie just to wait and see if it got any better. No such luck! I haven't sen his other movie Torched and I doubt if I'll bother now. | 0neg
|
I watched the Unrated version of this film and realised about 30 minutes into it that I was never getting my time back. I persevered to the end hoping that the dialogue would improve, the martial arts would look realistic eventually, the special FX would actually look special. I was so wrong. I love Horror, I am a complete gore hound. I number some of the eighties splatter flicks amongst the greats of the film world. This however was not made in the eighties, if this film had come out in the early eighties the fax could be forgiven for looking so bad. It wasn't so it hasn't got that defence. The dialogue is terrible with so many bad lines I was wincing at the writing rather than squirming at torture. I don't like Hostel, never have, I thought it was over rated, over hyped and I felt nothing for the protagonists, however it shines as a beacon to greatness next to this garbage. The back of the cover for Live Feed promised a twist you would never see coming, I'm still waiting for the twist that was promised. | 0neg
|
Where to even start? The horrendous acting? The nonsensical plot? The bargain basement effects? The completely loathsome characters? The choppy editing? The headache-inducing Casio keyboard score??? The embarrassingly racist remarks ("Watch it, Charlie!", "Back off, Jackie Chan!!"??? The constant misogyny??? I am a lifelong horror fan, and I have no problem at all with the current "torture-thon" trend of movies. However, this is a poorly-made piece of garbage. I think I suffered more pain watching this than the characters did dying in it! If you like girls being forced to eat stir-fried penis, really poor soft core porn and think lines like "I'm gonna find that b**** and staple her c*** shut!!" are clever, LIVE FEED is for you.<br /><br />As for me, I feel the need to go wash my eyes out with oven cleaner to prevent from ever seeing this movie again! | 0neg
|
This has to be the WORST movie ever!!! The acting is scarier than the movie. Lots of blood, but no idea where it comes from, cuz they don't even show you the cuts. I can't believe I wasted my time watching this movie. We laughed like we were watching a comedy and not a horror movie. This is a disgrace to horror films!!! For one if they are in Asia why is there a white cop driving past Waste Management trash cans?! There's so much of another language that you don't even know what's going on half the time. The film editing is a joke, my teenager could do better. And if I went to a movie theater and that nasty old man was working the window that would be the first clue. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! NOT TO EVEN SEE HOW BAD IT IS, YOU WILL BE SORRY YOU DID!! | 0neg
|
Live Feed is set in some unnamed Chinese/Japanese Asian district somewhere as five American friends, Sarah (Ashley Schappert), Emily (Taayla Markell), Linda (Caroline Chojnacki), Mike (Lee Tichon) & Darren (Rob Scattergood) are enjoying a night on the town & taking in the sights. After a scuffle in a bar with a Japanese Triad boss (Stephen Chang) they decide to check out a porno theatre, as you would. Inside they are separated & quickly find out that the place belongs to the Triad boss who uses it to torture & kill people for reasons which aren't made clear. Can local boy Miles (Kevan Ohtsji) save them?<br /><br />This Canadian production was co-written, produced & directed by Ryan Nicholson who also gets a prosthetic effects designer credit as well, one has to say that Live Feed is another pretty poor low budget shot on a camcorder type horror film that seems to exist only to cash in on the notoriety & success of Hostel (2005) & the mini craze for 'torture porn' as it's become known. According the IMDb's 'Trivia' section for Live Feed writer & director Nicholson wrote it after hearing about certain activities taking place in live sex theatres, for my money I reckon he wrote it after watching Hostel! The script is pretty poor, there is no basic reason given as to why this porno theatre has a big fat ugly freak dressed in bondage gear lurking around torturing & killing people, none. Was it for the Triads? Was it for his pleasure? Was it to make snuff films to sell? Some sort of explanation would have been nice. Also why did he turn on the Triad boss at the end? If your looking for a film with a coherent story then forget about Live Feed. It seemed to me to be some sort of uneasy misjudged mix of sex, S&M, horror, torture, gore & action films which doesn't come off. I mean just setting a horror film in a porn theatre isn't automatically going to make your film any good, there still needs to be a decent script & story, right? The character's were fairly poor clichés & some of their actions & motivations were more than a little bit questionable. It moves along at a reasonable pace, it's fairly sleazy mixing gore, sex & nudity but it does look cheap which lessens the effect.<br /><br />Director Nicholson doesn't do anything special here, the editing is choppy & annoying, he seems to think lighting almost every scene with neon lights is a good idea & the film has a cheap look about it. Available in both 'R' & 'Unrated' versions I saw the shorter cut 'R' version which really isn't that gory but I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the 'Unrated' version & say that it might be much, much gorier but I can't say for sure. There's a fair amount of nudity too if that's your thing. I wouldn't say there's much of an atmosphere or many scares here because there isn't & aren't respectively although it does have a sleazy tone in general which is something it has going for it I suppose.<br /><br />Technically Live Feed isn't terribly impressive, the blood looks a little too watery for my liking & entire scenes bathed in annoying neon lights sometimes makes it hard to tell whats happening, it to often looks like it was shot on a hand-held camcorder & the choppy editing at least on the 'R' rated version is at times an annoying mess. Shot on location in an actual porn theatre somewhere in Vancouver in Canada. The acting is poor, sometimes I couldn't tell if the actresses in this were supposed to be crying or laughing...<br /><br />Live Feed is not a film I would recommend anyone to rush out & buy or rent, I didn't think much of it with it's very weak predictable storyline lacking exposition & which goes nowhere, poor acting & less than impressive gore (at least in the 'R' rated cut anyway). Watch either Hostel films again or instead as they are superior. | 0neg
|
I just want to start by saying this is the first review of a film I have done on the net. I felt the need to warn people about this film because it truly is one of the worst films I have ever seen. After reading interviews with the director he says he respects constructive criticism and so i will try to avoid bashing the film just for the sake of it and offer my opinions as to why i found it to be so catastrophically terrible.<br /><br />1. The actors. I know the budget may not have allowed for great thespians but with Nicholson working in the industry for over ten years surely he knew some actors who were at least average.<br /><br />2. The incredibly lame make up and special effects. Once again budget obviously interfered with what was originally intended but after working in make up for so many years there is really no excuse.<br /><br />3. The obvious similarities to Hostel. Whilst not being exactly a rip off it sure does try to cash in on the former films success. Only problem is Roth knew where he was going and exactly how to get there...<br /><br />4. The music. Not at all creepy or haunting not even sickening just plain annoying.<br /><br />5. The script in general. All dialogue was forced and terrible! Also the sub plots about the theatre and the guy who comes in to save them were weak as and almost like an afterthought.<br /><br />6. The editing. WTF. How jarring, and not in a good way. nuf said.<br /><br />Seriously I would like to hear the director's thoughts on my post (he no doubt frequents his pages on IMDb.) cause buddy... what were you thinking. Surely at some point during either the shooting or editing you realised what a turkey yolu had on your hands... Sorry I don't want to be harsh but you must have more talent than this i hope your next feature that gutterballs movie or wahtever is better, hopefully practice makes progress.<br /><br />But in the mean time avoid this like the plague. I want my 81 mins back with interest. (At least I didn't pay to watch it.) | 0neg
|
An obvious b-grade effort to cash in on the Hostel/Saw buzz, my expectations for this film were low (really low!) and yet it still managed to disappoint on every level. The acting is so bad it's not even funny, the plot-line is non-existent and the only scare was realizing that I had wasted 1hour 21 minutes watching it! I'm surprised to note that 34 people gave it a 10 star rating. I can only suspect that 33 of these are Cast and Crew. The 34th is possibly the directors mother? - although I'm sure even she would find it hard to go higher than a 2! DVD extras include an hour long "making of" feature. Which raises the question, "Why?" (although perhaps it serves to demonstrate what not to do!). Avoid at all costs. | 0neg
|
2005 gave us the very decent "gore porn" flick Hostel, and 2006 gave us Live Feed; a not so decent rip-off of Hostel. Live Feed follows pretty much the same formula as Eli Roth's earlier film, except this time the dumb kids are in Asia rather than central Europe. The plot focuses on these dumb kids, and one of them has annoyed one of the locals so they find themselves in trouble. The locals decide to lock them all in a theatre, and kill them. Despite the fact that I'd heard some less than favourable things about this film before seeing it, I still hoped that it might be at least half decent because director Ryan Nicholson previously made the very decent 45 minute rape and revenge film 'Torched', but this film falls down simply because most of it is either ridiculous or boring. The film is obviously trying to hark back to the good old days of Grindhouse cinema (which Hostel did, successfully), but it really doesn't come off. Surprisingly, considering Nicholson's previous work in special effects - not even the gore is impressive...although it is a lot better than the acting! There's not much else I can say about this film...it's bad and not in a good way. Avoid it! | 0neg
|
I agree with the last reviewer that this movie had terrible acting. Yes, there was a lot of gore and some nudity. But it was overshadowed by a slow-moving, meaningless plot and dumb ending. Where was this supposed to be filmed anyway: a Canadian Chinatown or Hong Kong? Hostel was a much better movie and I would recommend seeing that instead. A technical annoyance I had with the DVD is that if you shut off the Spanish subtitles, they return after a few scenes and then you have to go back to the main menu and turn them off again. Also, don't waste your time on the deleted scenes because there's no audio and it just looks like tourist footage. | 0neg
|
Anyone who has said that it's better than Hostel is talking complete crap, believe me I'm not a fan of Hostel but this is just ridiculous. This is just another shot on camcorder, straight to DVD, low on ideas waste of your time, I can't believe how many of these films there are and I'm yet to see a decent one. In the 80's video nasties, gore and horror movies were made with no budget but a great story and a load of new ideas and most importantly the heart and soul of the director who had something to say. Now they just seem to be pumped out in an attempt to trick people browsing in Blockbuster to rent a copy, until people stop doing this then I guess these films will keep appearing. This film is so low on ideas it's just amazing how it ever got made, the acting is also terrible, the location completely unconvincing and the soundtrack is so annoying it beggars belief. This waste of time has absolutely nothing going for it, unless you're on a quest to compile a list of the worst movies of all time. My best/worst part of the film is when a female character is pointing a gun at someone and threatening to shoot them if they don't back off, you can see that she isn't even covering the trigger with her finger just holding the grip. An absolute joke. | 0neg
|
First I'd like to excuse my bad English.<br /><br />I'm not a HOSTEL-hardcore-fan, but I liked that movie nevertheless. Live Feed, however, SUCKED BIG TIME! I have never seen a gore-movie with superb acting, but hey, who's surprised? The acting in Live Feed was... well, not there! I've seen some commented this as it must have been a school project or something. Okey, but not by students in media or acting school. This was NO class at all! And what about the story? A really sad rip-off on Hostel. And what about the gore? What about the psychopathic torture scenes that supposed to make your guts twist and leave you cold-sweating? That was the most disappointing about the hole movie! Short, quick and NO edge. More like an execution rather than a torture. Okey, there where buckets of blood, but it didn't even look real. The slaughtering and the violence reminded more of Braindead than Hostel or any of the Saw-movies. And Braindead was fun! Okey, I laughed at Live Feed a couple of times, but that was more out of disappointment than out of sheer fun!<br /><br />So instead of wasting 80 minutes by watching Live Feed, watch ANYTHING else! | 0neg
|
I wasn't at all a fan of the 2005 gore fest hit "Hostel", and most of these lame ass knock-offs are just as bad or worse - yet "Live Feed" managed to keep me somewhat entertained for about the first 30 minutes. Started off with plenty of sex and sleazy settings, followed by some good death scenes involving the Chinese Organized Crime Squad and a 7-foot, leather-aproned butcher... What put me out of the movie was the tough 'hero' with the guns and a grudge saving the day... I would call this movie mediocre, at best, since a premise mainly involving obnoxious young people being slaughtered in a seedy porno theater, doubling as a hideout for the mafia, is appealing to me. If only the torture was prolonged enough to be thoroughly effective, then my rating would have differed greatly. Unfortunately, most of the gruesomeness is heaped together in one scene, leaving the rest of the movie to conclude as a revenge-type scenario. So, basically, it IS just a low-budget "Hostel" rip-off with the redeeming use of gratuitous sex, almost constant during the first half of the film... Overall, I would say don't bother with this one. | 0neg
|
Some gorehound-friends recommended "Live Feed" to me, and basically I can't really complain as the film certainly does deliver copious amounts of gross smut and buckets full of sleaze, but it is of course not a very good film. More than obviously cashing in on the latest trend in horror cinema, the so-called Torture Porn, Ryan Nicholson tries to surpass every other film in this sub genre (and that includes the role models "Hostel" and "Saw") with its sick & twisted make-up effects and thoroughly depraved shots of naked co-eds tried up, suffering and begging for their lives. There's no actual plot to describe. Five utterly brainless twenty-something friends take a trip to Asia. One of them has Asian roots, but other than that I don't really know why they opted to travel there instead of to Cancun. They're clearly not interested in the continents culture and even cause a hectic scene when they witness a local butchering a cute puppy dog on the market. The quintet subsequently dives into the lurid night life and one of them accidentally insults the leader of a criminal clan. A simply apology clearly doesn't suffice, as the gangster follow them into an adult theater and gradually subject all of them to vicious torture. One girl has her breast impaled and another poor wench even has a poisonous snake shoved down her throat; yikes. "Live Feed" is surprisingly boring despite of all the bloodshed and the amateurish production values are quite difficult to overlook, even if you're used to watching independent fan-boy trash cinema like this. The fat bloke depicted on the cover, an oriental S&M executioner, is admittedly quite cool and he's also the most talented of the whole bunch, because he at least keeps his mouth shut the entire time. I wouldn't exactly recommend this pile of filth, but hey, if you like loud & hideous metal music, nauseating torture footage and dim-witted losers, go right ahead and watch! | 0neg
|
This movie is a lot like the movie Hostel, except with *BAD* acting and not much suspense. The gore elements are there, but you don't really feel anything for the characters, making the violence not very effective. Some parts are just strange... like forcing a snake down someones throat. What's up with that? Is that supposed to be scary or gory? It's just kind of stupid. As for torture, there really isn't any (except for the guy getting blow-torched in the beginning, which they don't show anyway). The main bad guy keeps saying "make them die slowly", yet the butcher kills them all very fast. The deaths are all relatively quick. Yes, I did watch the "unrated" version. So, overall, not the worst gore movie I've seen, but not at all good either. You won't miss anything if you skip this one. | 0neg
|
There was no characterization in this movie and really shows how much this talentless hack who directed this needs to learn his craft. All his characters in this movie were so unlikable and I could care less. The best point in this movie was the end credits and the hour long shower after this cause I felt so damn dirty that I wasted money on this stinking load. Hey genius....triads and yakuza are from two different places learn something about Asian culture. The dog scene in this felt so tacked on and useless. This DVD does prove useful I do love my new coaster.<br /><br />So kids don't waste your cash on this crap buy Hostel instead. | 0neg
|
Whoa nelly! I've heard a ton of mixed reviews for this...but one of my go to hardcore horror reviewers really found it to be disappointing. Man was he right on the nose! This movie was acted by pure amateurs. They HAD to have done one take, maybe two on each scene, the movie seemed soooo rushed. The script was also poor....they had lines that tried to be unique but failed. Miserably. "Get your meathooks off of me!" Oh man, I hate it when movies try to do that. It happens all the time with comedies...but, with a horror movie and with below average actors....the results are incredibly pathetic. The lines and scenarios were all very predictable. But what made me feel so negative towards this movie was, again, the damn acting. It was awful. Besides by the little Asian guy who worked the booth. I thought he was great.<br /><br />The movie is about 5 stupid dumbsh!t tourist who are on a vacation in Asia. They end up at the wrong place and fall into the hands of a mafia run sex/slaughterhouse. Sounds like a cool story. But watching someone with a bad case of diarrhea is probably more fun and intense to watch. The only reason this is considered horror is because of the killing. There wasn't a trace of suspense.<br /><br />I like many other horror fans were dying to get their bloody little mitts on this. But unfortunately with a HUGE capital U, the movie was incredibly disappointing. I did enjoy the ankle break and the blood effects. The flabby chicks were also so so.<br /><br />Everything about this movie screams amateur. This is Ryan Nicholson's first feature length, and for the most part he failed. There's no denying he has a sick sense of humor and taste for horror. I pray his next movie doesn't play out like another B horror flick...unless he tells us that's what it's gonna be. Even after this disappointment I'm willing to give Ryan another shot. From what I've seen of him, he's a true, dedicated man to the genre. Good luck next time, because this was bad news. | 0neg
|
This film is not deserved of the next few minutes I will spend criticizing it, but I know many people, like myself, rely on IMDb.com to assist in deciding on films. For that reason alone, I am writing this.<br /><br />"Live Feed" is like an Asian version of 1976's "The Incredible Torture Show" (aka "Blood Sucking Freaks") http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077247/. Torture, dismemberment, murder, cannibalism... sure, it's all here along with a third-grade script, pathetic acting, and a perverted failure of an attempt at black comedy.<br /><br />The film takes place in China, yet everyone speaks English. There is an abundance of girls in the film who are horrified by the butchering of dogs in a marketplace, yet are sexually excited about entering a porno parlor. One gal who is disgusted by the filth in a restroom stall moments later is still there having at it with her friends boyfriend (how he even got in there might be the only engaging thing about this whole film.) The film is absolutely awful, even for a B-movie. Even if you were to download it for free, it would be an insult to your hard drive. | 0neg
|
'Say Yes' is one of those flicks that you keep hoping is going to get better, but it never does. It's the kind of 'motiveless psychopath decides to menace an innocent couple' crapfest, so beloved of straight to video film-makers. <br /><br />The dialogue is clunky and, in several places, poorly translated. The acting is uniformly poor, especially from the villain of the piece, played by Joong-Hoon Park. He seems to think that by not blinking and trying to talk in a deep voice he is making his character seem threatening, when all it really does is make him seem a bit simple.<br /><br />The plot deserves special mention, as it is idiotic beyond all belief. The 'heroes' don't think it overly strange that their hitchhiker threatens to kill them. The 'heroine' twice manages to miss seeing the villain when he is no more than a foot away from her. The villain gets past a police checkpoint (while wearing a shirt covered in blood, and a bloody head bandage) by showing the cops a burnt corpse in the passenger seat of the car he is driving. The villain is punched, clubbed with a shovel and stuck through with a pitchfork, but never seems to be impeded by these, rather serious, injuries. And don't even get me started on that terrible 'twist' ending. Sheesh.<br /><br />The only plus point in this film, for me, is Sang Mi Chu. Who is very pretty, but really no more than a mediocre actress.<br /><br />Overall, this film comes off like a poorly written, flaccidly acted and shockingly directed attempt to copy 'The Hitcher' and 'Spoorloos', but it fails at every turn due to a lack of talent in everyone involved. | 0neg
|
I have seen many good Korean Movies including thrillers and movies with darker overtone, but this one sucks. The director seems to be a sadist, who happened to get someone to produce some junk. The movie lacks any sort of entertainment value and is not even a thriller. I can't believe someone really made such a movie. Even though acting is OK, the story line and the feeling it leaves is awful.<br /><br />I am sure, I am not going to see any movies of this director. No sense of movie making, and utter disappointment in having thriller moments. All this has is showing scenes with psychopath wasting the reels with badly shot scenes and showing more blood and violence thinking that makes it thrilling. Very disappointing movie and I strongly recommend skipping all the movies of this sort. | 0neg
|
There's nothing worse than renting an Asian movie and getting an American movie experience instead.<br /><br />It's only my opinion, but a good thriller is dependent upon the establishment of likable, intelligent characters. As far as likability is concerned, the protagonists in Say Yes are a quaint married couple. Nicely done. Unfortunately, they are stupid beyond belief. Let us count the ways they mishandle being terrorized by a stalker.<br /><br />1. After a hitchhiker threatens to kill you, be sure to tell him what hotel you're staying at when you drop him off.<br /><br />2. Beat the hell out of the stalker in broad daylight and in front of dozens of witnesses, thereby allowing him to press charges of assault.<br /><br />3. Don't bother telling the police about the stalker and simply assume (for no apparently good reason) that the cops were bribed by him.<br /><br />4. While trying to escape, let your lady out of your sight as much as possible to ensure that the stalker kidnaps her.<br /><br />5. After getting help from someone to find the stalker after kidnapping your wife, be sure to send them away as soon as possible so you can face him one-on-one. No point in being unfair, right? <br /><br />Now, I'd never expect that any person would be immune to making a few mistakes under these stressful conditions, but the characters in Say Yes are so dense and make so many unbelievable mistakes that it's effectively impossible for the viewer to care about their safety, since they are victims of their own doing. This kills the enjoyability of the entire film. <br /><br />In case you were wondering, the scriptwriters didn't stop with dim-witted characters. Since they themselves are surely dim-witted for writing this crapfest, they decided to make situations so absurdly unrealistic that all sense of reality goes out the window.<br /><br />1. The stalker kills a cop inside a police station while the protagonist is asleep no more than ten feet away.<br /><br />2. The stalker engages in all sorts of dubious activities in broad daylight and around tons of people, yet no one other than the married couple seems to notice his odd behavior.<br /><br />3. The stalker survives an absurd amount of violence that would have killed any human being.<br /><br />4. The "suspense" scenes had no imagination whatsoever. In fact, some scenes were direct rip-offs from American movies.<br /><br />The only positive is the decapitation near the end, which was a pretty brutal scene since it was inflicted upon the wife. It's too bad the filmmakers followed it up with an outrageously stupid ending that comes out of left field.<br /><br />Truly, the Koreans behind the making of Say Yes should be ashamed of themselves. Better yet, they should just move to California and take employment with people who make movies with a similar disregard for quality and intelligence. | 0neg
|
After sitting through this pile of dung, my husband and I wondered whether it was actually the product of an experiment to see whether a computer program could produce a movie. It was that listless and formulaic. But the U.S. propaganda thrown in your face throughout the film proves--disappointingly--that it's the work of humans. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but quotes like, "We have to steal the Declaration of Independence to protect it" seem like ways to justify actions like the invasion of Iraq, etc. The fact that Nicholas Cage spews lines like, "I would never use the Declaration of Independence as a bargaining chip" with a straight face made me and my husband wonder whether the entire cast took Valium before shooting each scene. The "reasoning" behind each plot turn and new "clue" is truly ridiculous and impossible to follow. And there's also a bonus side plot of misogyny, with Dr. Whatever-Her-Name-Was being chided by all involved for "never shutting up." She's clearly in the movie only for looks, but they felt the need to slap a "Dr." title on her character to give her some gravity. At one point, Cage's character says, "Don't you ever shut up?" and the camera pans to her looking poutily down at her hands, like she's a child. Truly grotesque. The only benefit to this movie was that it's so astonishingly bad, you do get a few laughs out of it. The really scary thing is that a majority of the people watching the movie with us seemed to enjoy it. Creepy.... | 0neg
|
National Treasure is about as over-rated and over-hyped as they come. Nicholas Cage is in no way a believable action hero, and this film is no "Indiana Jones". People who have compared this movie to the Indian Jones classic trilogy have seriously fallen off their rocker.<br /><br />I can't really figure out what kind of target audience this film was shooting for. Maybe the pre-teen audience will like it, but I found it to be absolutely ludicrous. I also can't imagine adults or young adults to find this to be that great of a film. Simply put: it's just OK at best.<br /><br />National Treasure is unimagined and uninspired, borrowing what it does have from "The Da Vinci Code". I would recommend waiting for that movie to be released in 2006, and passing on this nonsense.<br /><br />The whole idea of being able to so easily steal the Declaration of Independence and run around all over Washington DC and Philadelphia with it (while never damaging it once), while fighting the "bad guys" and experiencing what is supposed to be "non-stop action" is absurd. I particularly loved the scene with the Declaration folded in its tube laying in the middle of a busy road while cars whiz by it without damaging it. Oh brother! <br /><br />Reminded me of that episode of the "Brady Bunch" where they go to the amusement park and Mr. Brady loses his architectural plans. Except, that episode of the Brady Bunch was much better than this whole film! <br /><br />The idea of such huge treasure that nobody believes exists being buried within a secret ruin of the US is outlandish. Literally, there are thousand of undiscovered "priceless" items in this treasure trove. Yeah right!! Ridiculous!! <br /><br />Even worse, the speed and accuracy of which Cage finds and figures out what are supposed to be "tough" clues to these ancient riddles are pre-posterous!!! Oh.. the humanity! <br /><br />The performances by Cage, Voight, and the other actors in "National Treasure" are as stiff ,wooden, and flat as they come. However, when you're working with such lousy dialogue, it's hard to fault the actor's 100% for that.<br /><br />National Treasure is an OK film to see once. I can't recommend it beyond that and would definitely NOT purchase this over the top, outlandish scavenger hunt of a mess.<br /><br />Rent it if you must see it first....... | 0neg
|
Well it looked good on paper,Nick Cage and Jerry Buckheimer collaborate again, this time on a mix of heist movie, Da Vinci Code,American History 101 and Indiana Jones. But oh dear, this is to Indiana Jones what Speed 2 is to Speed. A reasonable cast(including John Voight and Harvey Keitel) battles against a puerile script and loses badly. The film is little more than an extended advert for the Freemasons.However these Freemasons are not your usual shopkeepers who use funny handshakes and play golf, these Freemasons are the natural descendants of the Knights Templar (and nobody mention 'From Hell' or Jack the Ripper.)I don't think I've revealed any plot spoilers because there are none. There is virtually no suspense, no surprises and no climax- it just stops. National Treasure aims for Dan Brown but hits the same intellectual level as an episode of Scooby Doo sans the humour. | 0neg
|
Nick Cage is Gates, a treasure hunter (oh, excuse me... treasure "protector", whatever that means) who is descended from a long line of treasure hunters. One of his ancestors had been given a clue to the whereabouts of a huge treasure that our Founding Fathers, most if not all Freemasons, had decided to hide because they just didn't want to finance their Independence all that badly.<br /><br />The first clue turns out to be in a long-lost ship hidden in the Arctic. Gates and his crew, consisting of financier Ian (Sean Bean), Movie Dork Riley (Justin Bartha of the immortal "Gigli") and a couple of faceless lackeys, enter the cargo hold of the ship. They immediately spill out tons of gunpowder all over the floor, not that this is significant in any way. At last they find the clue (a skeleton is hovering over it) and it turns out to be a pipe with writing... on it. Sort of. Don't ask me to explain.<br /><br />It's a riddle, and despite the fact that his expedition is clearly miffed at not finding the actual treasure, Gates wanders around yammering to himself about the meaning of the riddle, in this frozen cargo hold, while the crew just stands around slack-jawed. I mean, come on. Someone should have been a little vocal in their disappointment of coming all the way to the freaking Arctic and not finding anything interesting, but they just stand there as Gates enters his own world, solving the riddle.<br /><br />The next clue turns out to be on the Declaration of Independence. Ian decides to steal it. Gates is appalled. Various characters deliver gratingly obvious exposition (get used to it). All this leads to Ian's lackey pulling a gun on Gates, and the gunpowder going off in a big explosion. (oh, that's why they spilled all the gunpowder! Huh!!) Ian and his henchmen make their escape, and Gates and Movie Dork Riley walk nine miles in subzero temperatures to an Inuit village in order to stop them.<br /><br />To stop them, Gates concludes after trying the FBI and Super Archivist Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger), Gates and Riley must steal it themselves. Riley then tells Gates in excruciating detail why they can not steal the Declaration, because it's so protected with metal and laser eyes and high tech security blah blah. Gates then tells Riley that there's an opportunity to steal it from the Preservation Room. Does Riley know what the Preservation Room is, Gates asks? "A place where they make jams and jellies?" I am not kidding; that's the actual line. Bartha doesn't deliver it like a joke, either. So Riley does all this research about the Library of Congress and the Archives and water and sewage, fercryinoutloud, but doesn't know what the Preservation Room is. This pretty much indicates what level this script is on.<br /><br />To make the rest of this short, Gates does in fact make off with the D of I, in a ridiculous break-in that could only happen in a movie. (I also hate the way they depict computer monitor technology in movies -- full of improbable and impractical graphics and fonts.) Abigail Chase ends up tagging along for convenience's sake, and as an obvious "love interest" angle. At one point, the three of them, on the run from the law, discuss all their plans really loudly in a clothing store, surrounded by people.<br /><br />A series of clues and the kidnapping of Gates' father, played by a dyspeptic Jon Voight, leads good guys and bad guys alike to a huge Indiana Jones fun-house located underneath New York City. Odd that the subway builders never found this thing. Gates and Gates Senior lead Ian off on a wild goose chase. Ian believes they're trapped in a cul-de-sac and leaves them there. However, after they're gone, Riley asks how they're going to get out. Gates...<br /><br />... oh boy ...<br /><br />... presses a button and a door opens. No, I'm serious. A button, like they might have on a vacu-flush lavatory in an office building. Good thing he knew where that was. Anyway, after some more knob-twiddling, they find this immense treasure room (remember, this is all underneath Manhattan!) full of all sorts of historyish golden things. Riley gets to deliver a really stupid line. Again. And FBI officer Harvey Keitel forgives them, arrests Sean Bean, and allows the two chemistry-less leads to get married.<br /><br />For any viewer, I think it would be hard to ignore all the exposition, the leaps of logic, and the stereotyped characters for very long. Though some of its exposition involves nice history lessons inserted into conversation at random moments. I'd like more conversations like that in my life. | 0neg
|
People like me will tear this movie apart. It's just not realistic. The Plot is sooooooo predictable. You can anticipate everything that happens convientantly Of course, they find the treasure and become filthy rich, and trick the bad guy. We've seen it a million times before. The writers of this movie must think that the majority of the movie going public is stupid. They must be right because The majority of people actually liked this film. I mean solving riddles in a matter of seconds. The secret treasure room hidden under the Manhattan subway? You'd think with all the work that's gone on in New York underground That room would have been discovered before. and all that was constructed during the civil war? PLEASE And the love story between Ben and Abigail?? how cute, and I thought the romance in Clive Cussler novels was weak. They just fall in love like that, in 2 seconds WHATEVER I'd be more concerned with saving my own ass then getting some. the hell with the girl and the stupid piece of paper. 1/10 Garbage | 0neg
|
I watched this movie last night on one of the pay-per-view channels, and while watching it I quickly wondered why I bothered. In all honesty I really did expect something more from this film. Maybe something along the lines of 'Conspiracy Theory'. Why? Maybe because of the casting. I mean, Nicolas Cage and Harvey Keitel, after all. Not to mention Jon Voight and Christopher Plummer. Now I'm wondering, why did they bother? But instead of an absorbing action cum mystery drama I was caught up in a pastiche of breakneck silliness a là 'The Goonies', which to my great surprise appears to have garnered some actual critical praise. Perhaps it's because 'The Goonies' was clearly targeted toward the pre-teen and teen audiences. Whereas 'National Treasure', judging from the previews, was seriously intended to appeal to an adult audience.<br /><br />Suspension of disbelief is one thing. It's how one can enjoy sci-fi and horror. But I found myself actually resisting the heaping tablespoons of paranoid and conspiracy-laden tripe being shoved at the audience. Oh, the screenwriter threw around all the jargon intended to evoke a sense of serious engaged wonderment. "Wow! The Masons. The Knights Templars. You know, this could really be true!" I think the writer really lost me when Gates said the Founding Fathers hid the treasure to keep it out of the hands of the British! And just were did the Knights Templar come from? New Jersey? Oh, I forget. From France! Which goes a long way to explain how it ended up in Philadelphia during the Revolution. It was brought there by agents of Napoleon! Anyway, you see what I'm getting at. The premise of the movie is interesting. And I really do think it could have succeeded as a serious mystery drama. But it just comes off as another kid flick in grown-up clothing. In the end I think it asks the audience not simply to suspend belief but to render itself willfully ignorant to an insulting degree.<br /><br />I've just finished watching several items by Werner Herzog and Istvan Szabo. It's a shock to switch from fine dining to Hollywood Big Mac and fries.<br /><br />Okay, okay. If you pant over chases, explosions, and 'gee-whiz' gimmickry you'll enjoy 'National Treasure'. But it's the sort of movie, well, have you ever stood outside a cinema waiting to get in while the previous audience comes out? And all the young kids are talking excitedly among themselves and saying things like, "Wow! Did you see how that thing blew up? That was so cool!" 'National Treasure' is that kind of movie. | 0neg
|
This movie is like the thousand "cat and mouse" movies that preceded it. (The following may look like a spoiler, but it really just describes a large class of movies) There is the passionate, wise main character, his goofy but well-meaning sidekick with his ill-placed attempts at humorous comments, the initially-hostile but soon softened gorgeous lady who triggers the inevitable "unlikely" love story, the loved ones taken hostage, and of course the careless evil adversary with his brutal minions. Everybody has seen tons of these movies already, and "National Treasure" is like any one of them, with only a slightly modified wrapping. Every turn of the story was easily predicted (and I can assure you I am not the sharpest tool in the shed). I am quite tired of feeling tricked for money after exiting the theater from a Hollywood movie, and if you have ever felt that way too, heed my warning; stay miles away from this movie. | 0neg
|
"National Treasure" (2004) is a thoroughly misguided hodge-podge of plot entanglements that borrow from nearly every cloak and dagger government conspiracy cliché that has ever been written. The film stars Nicholas Cage as Benjamin Franklin Gates (how precious is that, I ask you?); a seemingly normal fellow who, for no other reason than being of a lineage of like-minded misguided fortune hunters, decides to steal a 'national treasure' that has been hidden by the United States founding fathers. After a bit of subtext and background that plays laughably (unintentionally) like Indiana Jones meets The Patriot, the film degenerates into one misguided whimsy after another attempting to create a 'Stanley Goodspeed' regurgitation of Nicholas Cage and launch the whole convoluted mess forward with a series of high octane, but disconnected misadventures.<br /><br />The relevancy and logic to having George Washington and his motley crew of patriots burying a king's ransom someplace on native soil, and then, going through the meticulous plan of leaving clues scattered throughout U.S. currency art work, is something that director Jon Turteltaub never quite gets around to explaining. Couldn't Washington found better usage for such wealth during the start up of the country? Hence, we are left with a mystery built on top of an enigma that is already on shaky ground by the time Ben appoints himself the new custodian of this untold wealth. Ben's intentions are noble if confusing. He's set on protecting the treasure. For who and when?
your guess is as good as mine.<br /><br />But there are a few problems with Ben's crusade. First up, his friend, Ian Holmes (Sean Bean) decides that he can't wait for Ben to make up his mind about stealing the Declaration of Independence from the National Archives (oh, yeah brilliant idea!). Presumably, the back of that famous document holds the secret answer to the ultimate fortune. So Ian tries to kill Ben. The assassination attempt is, of course, unsuccessful, if overly melodramatic. It also affords Ben the opportunity to pick up, and pick on, the very sultry curator of the archives, Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger). She thinks Ben is clearly a nut at least at the beginning. But true to action/romance form, Abby's resolve melts quicker than you can say, "is that the Hope Diamond?" The film moves into full X-File-ish mode, as the FBI, mistakenly believing that Ben is behind the theft, retaliate in various benign ways that lead to a multi-layering of action sequences reminiscent of Mission Impossible meets The Fugitive. Honestly, don't those guys ever get 'intelligence' information that is correct? In the final analysis, "National Treasure" isn't great film making, so much as it's a patchwork rehash of tired old bits from other movies, woven together from scraps, the likes of which would make IL' Betsy Ross blush.<br /><br />The Buena Vista DVD delivers a far more generous treatment than this film is deserving of. The anamorphic widescreen picture exhibits a very smooth and finely detailed image with very rich colors, natural flesh tones, solid blacks and clean whites. The stylized image is also free of blemishes and digital enhancements. The audio is 5.1 and delivers a nice sonic boom to your side and rear speakers with intensity and realism. Extras include a host of promotional junket material that is rather deep and over the top in its explanation of how and why this film was made. If only, as an audience, we had had more clarification as to why Ben and co. were chasing after an illusive treasure, this might have been one good flick. Extras conclude with the theatrical trailer, audio commentary and deleted scenes. Not for the faint-hearted just the thick-headed. | 0neg
|
Having read some good reviews about this film I thought it was about time I go and see it. Well I don't know why I bothered. Basically this family is entrusted with a clue that leads to a whole big stash of ancient treasure, hidden by the Knights Templar during the War of Independence. Apparently it had to be kept out of the hands of the British at all costs. Firstly, why did said Knights move the treasure from Europe to America? How did Nic Cages character figure out that 'Charlotte' was in fact a ship? How do they figure out all the clues and riddles in about a minute? And how could two people suddenly become master thieves and steal what is probably the best guarded bit of paper in the world? These are just some of the plot holes in this inane bit of Hollywood action gone wrong. Cage has been in some great action movies - 'Face-Off' and 'The Rock' - so why has he lowered himself to this? Is he getting too old?! His character is pretty annoying really - Somehow this 'ordinary' guy steals the Declaration of Independancd, outruns thieves with guns, escapes from the FBI and generally seems invincible. The whole film doesn't really make any sense and all in all it was quite a disappointment. | 0neg
|
Everyone in a while, Disney makes one of thoes movies that surprises everyone. One that keeps you wondering until the very end. In the tradition of Pirates of the Caribbean, this movie is sure to turn into a ghost, and kill and rape your village. It's terrible. If you want a mindless, senseless, predictable "action" movie, go right ahead. I believe that young kids might enjoy this, as they like it when Good ALWAYS wins. But me, I like movies where it's a toss up who's going to win. This movie never lets the Bad Guys have the upper hand. By the end, when th heroes are left in an "inescapeable" pit, you just KNOW that they can get out. Everything works out perfect for Cage and his friends, he never has to think over a riddle or clue for more than 10 seconds, no matter how complex it is. See this movie if you want to see some impressive set designs, not if you want to see good acting, or a good film. Go watch a superman movie, it would be much shorter, and the kids would like it more. For instance, the scene where Cage is fleeing from armed gunmen, and the bullets are all deflected by a the railing of a fire escape. (And I'm not talking about a fence or anything, just ONE LITTLE POLE) This movie shows the decay of films and the film industry to cheap gags and dull, unrealistic action, which this movie provides in huge quantities. | 0neg
|
What a disappointment! I hated the mummy but this one was even worse! It was very tiring and unbelievable and at a certain point I found myself sighing and yawning all the time. I can't believe that people actually liked this movie. The role of Nicholas Cage wasn't very convincing. The whole movie felt like a grand tour around America's most wanted buildings. The never stopping flow of hints and combinations wasn't very convincing either. I stopped paying attention around 30 minutes. What was supposed to be a happy night out became a total disappointment. What a drag... I guess I've just seen too many movies to enjoy National Treasure. | 0neg
|
And so the great rewriting of history continues Hollywood style.<br /><br />This was senseless ridiculous rubbish.<br /><br />Its shocks me that such an amazing amount of money can be spent to produce what is the most contrived, poorly acted inaccurate film I have ever seen. It is appalling.<br /><br />Nic Cage's brief flirtation with serious acting appears to be over. I can only assume that Leaving Las Vegas was a glitch in an otherwise litany of dreadful films.<br /><br />Diane Kruger proves that her performance in Troy was no fluke, she really can't act.<br /><br />Harvey Keitel should be ashamed of himself for working on such tripe.<br /><br />Only recommended for those either recovering from a recent lobotomy or people of an opinion that America invented the world. | 0neg
|
How this film gains a 6.7 rating is beyond belief. It deserves nothing better than a 2.0 and clearly should rank among IMDb's worst 100 films of all time. National Treasure is an affront to the national intelligence and just yet another assault made on American audiences by Hollywood. Critics told of plot holes you could drive a 16 wheeler through.<br /><br />I love the justifications for this movie being good... "Nicholas Cage is cute." Come on people, no wonder people around the world think Americans are stupid. This has to be the most stupid, insulting movie I have ever seen. If you wanted to see an actually decent film this season, consider Kinsey, The Woodsman, Million Dollar Baby or Sideways. National Treasure unfortunately got a lot more publicity than those terrific films. I bet most of you reading this haven't even heard of them, since some haven't been widely released yet.<br /><br />Nicholas Cage is a terrific actor - when he is in the right movies. Time after time I've seen Cage waste his terrific talent in awful mind-numbing films like Con Air, The Rock and Face-Off. When his talent is put to good use like in Charlie Kaufman's Adaptation he is an incredible actor.<br /><br />Bottom line - I'd rather feed my hand to a wood chipper than be subjected to this visual atrocity again. | 0neg
|
WOW, this movie was so horrible. I'm so glad i didn't have to pay money to see this horrible movie. it was like a history nut went on a coke binge! the previews of it made it look decent but it was REALLY bad. i will say the idea sounded decent but come on. it was really really bad. If u sat down and thought about it you would also realize it was UNREALISTIC. come on back in the day u think they had all that stuff to work with. It wasn't like ben franklin sat down one day and made a damn riddle. it was completely ridiculous, and it you want to see a bad movie then by all means go see this one. All and ALL HORRIBLE movie it might actually be on my top 10 WORST films I've ever seen. | 0neg
|
I almost drowned in CHEESE watching this movie. In fact I could not even finish it. I want my money back. One more of Hollywood's feeble attempts to come up with a new idea. Good thing I keep a bowl of lemons in the fridge. Just in case. They should of gave Nic Cage a hat and a bull-whip. Swashbucklin'. Cage's performance in Raising Arizona or Leaving Las Vegas beats this "lemon". People who are completely and totally marketed(and most of them are) should love this movie. If this film had been animated, I would have taken it more seriously. I would of rather paid to see a completely stupid movie that did not try to hide it. In my opinion, this was a incredibly stupid movie and it made a even more incredibly sad attempt to try and hide that FACT.<br /><br />All the SHEEP seem to love it though. | 0neg
|
This is the most elementary sort of traditional ghost story, not even enlivened to any great extent by the use of Irish locations. If the great M.R. James had ever come up with a tale this thin -- doesn't James in fact have a story called "A Thin Ghost"? -- he wouldn't have bothered to have it published.<br /><br />Orson Welles appears in the limp endpieces as a favour to a brace of old friends, this film's producers. His presence and the one movie industry in-joke would have earned this will-o'-the-wisp its Oscar nomination. This is yet more proof, if any more were needed, that the Academy Awards have never been any guarantee of merit. | 0neg
|
It kept my attention to the end, however, without spoiling the film for anyone....... when she fixed the fridge by getting a book from the library, you knew how the film would end when she went back to library for a book on self defence against and assassin. The film, for me, said nothing of worth.... is becoming an assassin really a remedy for mental illness or just another symptom. | 0neg
|
This film is described as a action/comedy. The first 15 minutes and James Belushi's presence point to it being a humorous gangster film.<br /><br />However, the introduction of the ridiculous female lead begins a number of ludicrous plot twists which do little to conceal the contrived ending. The film moves between comedy(description used loosely) and surreal drama with some out of context adult scenes thrown in. The lead female (the Angel of the title) is poorly acted and the actress is not helped by the script which requires some unbelievable, extremes of character to be portrayed. James Belushi is the only one who handles his part well but is also let down by the poor script. One to avoid. | 0neg
|
I'll be honest- the reason I rented this movie was because I am a huge fan of Kyle Chandler's (most notably from Early Edition). Since he usually plays the good guy, I wanted to see him as in a different role (out of curiosity). The plot itself also drew me in; a wanna-be hitman (Tony Greco- a.k.a. Mr. Chandler) must kill a person at random before he is trusted with the life- or, rather, the death- of a witness who will testify against someone in "the family". The movies was nothing like I expected. It was sick, I hated the end (if you saw it, you'd know why), and there were so many unnecessary parts. Basically- it was filthy, and made little sense. Yes, it was a mob movie, and yes the guns do go BOOM. But there's more to a movie than that. This film acted as if it didn't have the time to go into detail- just deal with it and understand it. The acting really made up for it- James Belushi was pretty amusing as "The Rose". Sheryl Lee made Angel seem as believable as she could get. She surprised me the most. And Kyle Chandler was equally convincing as an anxious newcomer to "the family". If only the script did justice to the actors. | 0neg
|
I can't believe the positive reviews of this movie - I thought it was one of the worst, most poorly executed and poorly acted movies I have ever seen. And the plot was completely ludicrous (sp?). She starts making out with him while he's tied to the chair? puh-lease. The worst part was that it wasn't even bad in a good, laughable way. Just plain terrible - I couldn't figure out why they even bothered to show it on HBO. I thought Belushi was ridiculously silly - very unbelievable as an "eccentric" hit man. idk, I could go on - again, I am shocked by the positive reviews. The only thing that kept me watching it is that it's fascinating to see how a movie can go wrong and what makes it bad. And the ending didn't disappoint in its silliness either! "live by the sword, die by the sword..." ridiculous. | 0neg
|
Dissapointing action movie with an interesting premise: a young Mafia would-to-be killer (Chandler) must demonstrate to his boss that he is a good man for the service so he goes to California to take some lessons with a very known professional killer (Beluschi). First and most important task: to kill a young woman (Lee) that is a completely strange for all of them. But is she a easy target? The movie goes on and on based upon this principal idea but the result is just bad routine; even the weird twist at the end does not save the movie. Good performance by Chandler. I give this a 4 (four). | 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.