text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Consider for a moment what it must be like to be Uwe Boll. Somewhere, perhaps in those places that Jack Nicholson said 'you don't talk about at parties', Boll knows that David Lean had head lice as a child that had more talent for film making than him. Gore Whores, metal-heads and the socially dysfunctional may bump into him on the circuit and tell him otherwise but general audiences find the Teutonic helmsman's output so bereft of originality, wit or imagination that he's become the internet's bogeyman an online discursive synonym for photochemical excrement. Boll does his best to ride over these naysayers, exploiting tax credits available in Germany and Canada to keep working and raising money from a network of dentists as Zero Mostel did with old ladies in The Producers. The difference being that Mostel's character knew he was making bowel fill. Maybe Uwe knows it too.<br /><br />Such is the level of hostility toward each new 'Bollbuster' that IMDb patrons sabotage their ratings by voting 1 before they've seen it. Boll's attempts at silencing his critics by challenging them to a boxing match and knocking them out just made them more determined. Indeed he's probably the only filmmaker that's boosted thesaurus sales as critics search for inventive ways of describing garbage.<br /><br />This onslaught has made Uwe a very thick skinned man, so much so that he must feel like he's wrapped in a carpet, but one who feels as if he's bullied by the entire world. Like most people in that situation he lashes out, determined to upset as many people as possible with the memory of a tearful evening holding Variety's review of House of the Dead, never too far from the surface. This 'I know you are but what am I' strategy for reclaiming the initiative produced the blunt satire of Postal, which attempted to napalm the dissenters with jokes about 9/11, Christian fundamentalism, Jihad, Nazism and paedophilia. Such a litany of invective requires a satirist with the mind of Peter Cook and the visual imagination of Chris Morris but the closest Boll gets to either man is the o in their surname.<br /><br />In Seed, shot back to back with the aforementioned game adaptation, Boll is back with a story about a sadistic serial murderer (is there any other kind?) who gets the chair only for two attempts to fail in permanently curtailing all signs of life. Mindful of the fictional law that says anyone still alive after 3 attempts must go free, though if you'd been fried with that much electricity why would you want to, they pronounce him legally dead and bury him, only for the disgruntled killer to resurface and begin a whirlwind tour of his gaolers.<br /><br />Boll begins his 'exploration of nihilistic rage' with Seed watching footage of animals being tortured for experimental purposes. From there we're treated to the killer's stock in trade kidnapping dogs, babies and grown women and allowing them to starve to death on camera only to become maggot food. We're invited to reflect on what a depraved race of amoral meat sacks we all are our inhumanity to each other and our fellow creatures acting as a lighting rod that acts as a catalyst for the most disgusting vestiges of the human condition. Yes, we're worthless, gormless sadists and worse than that, we won't give Uwe a good rating on the IMDb. In short, humanity is bunk.<br /><br />Of course you might think that Uwe relies on our worst excesses for his livelihood and with that in mind it's a bit of a bipolar piece, on one hand hating its audience and positively basting itself in the sour milk of human kindness the milk that poor old Boll has had to drink for so long, while simultaneously whipping out its member and inviting those with a pornographic lust for on screen depravity to marvel at its sheer arse splitting girth.<br /><br />The result says nothing about society and its discontents, more the corrosive effect bad press is having on its director. Poor Uwe is obviously a very angry man one scene in which a poor woman gets her brains hammered to a pulp while tied to a chair, no doubt a surrogate for his own fantasy's about dispatching various web critics. That it's there but takes an avant-garde approach by failing to be attached to any kind of narrative thread, shows that Boll is a pornographer whose happy to engage with the blood lust of his audience and knows that plot is surplus to requirements. He's made a film which is competently shot but utterly desolate. "I wanted to make a horror movie that was no fun" Boll told the audience at the film's world premiere and he has, on that flimsy manifesto, succeeded but if this was supposed to convince the director's detractors that he was a serious genre filmmaker, he'll need something genuine to say as well as a better, more original way of saying it. | 0neg
|
First off... I never considered myself an Uwe Boll Hater since I think I never even saw one of his movies but after seeing this cheap excuse for a movie named "Seed" (which is the name of the serial killer this movie is about) I am close to joining the hate club. This movie makes absolutely no sense at all... the plot is a joke and although Boll clearly tries to get attention by shocking people 90% of this movie is just plain boredom. You can sum up this movie like this: <br /><br />1. Hooded killer watches clips of animals getting tortured on TV. This is real life footage from pelt farms and the movie opens with the ridiculous reason of "making a statement about humanity" and giving a Peta address. Since this movie has no message at all and is the worst piece of torture porn-exploitation you already have a reason to hate the movie from the beginning onward.<br /><br />2. Death by electrocution with a pretext that gives away what happens later in this movie printed on screen so every retard gets it.<br /><br />3. Cops watch videos of animals, babies and women starved to death and decomposing in Seeds basement, having stupid nightmares and crying into their whiskey because Seed is such an evil bad mofo. Although the acting is OK the movie takes a dive every time it tries to incorporate any emotions... <br /><br />4. Cops bust Seed in his house, act stupid and get slashed in the dark. This sequence reminds me of a video game, you barely see anything except flashlights. Seed is a super killer that is everywhere at once and all cops act stupid enough to be killed... except for one who busts him.<br /><br />5. Seed gets the chair and we see his electrocution as lengthy as everything else in this "movie"... he won't die and we are reminded of the opening statement that he must be set free if he survives 3 electric jolts. Guess what... they just bury him alive to solve the problem.<br /><br />6. Seed comes out of his grave, kills everyone off in another slashing part and then seeks the main cop to take revenge on.<br /><br />7. A woman gets her head bashed in with a hammer in an endless sequence from one point of view just for the fun and shock value of it. <br /><br />8. Seed captures the cops family, lures him to his house, threatens to kill his wife and daughter. After killing his wife with a nail gun the cop shoots himself in the head considering thats whats Seed wants (its hard to get into that guys head since he not just wears his mask even in prison but also never utters a word ... the movie has barely any dialog anyway so don't mind).<br /><br />9. Boll goes for a nihilistic shocker end where Seed locks the daughter in with her dead dad to rot like the persons we saw on video on sequence 3.<br /><br />This is it... no message, no plot, no reason, no face behind the mask, no background except a stupid story that Seed was burnt as a child.<br /><br />This movie relies purely on few key scenes and their shock value. I hardly remember a movie this empty of any emotion or message or entertainment. Its like watching August Underground ... thats fine with me, some people will enjoy this brainless snuff. But what is really hard to stand about it is the pseudo-message in the beginning and the fact that the movie is well made considering camera-work, effects and even the acting is too good for this waste of celluloid. <br /><br />So how does Boll get money to make such "movies" when thousands of talented directors work on shoestring budgets?? "Seed" is not just the essence of ridiculous, its living proof that the free market is flawed ... lucky Uwe that the German taxpayer is paying for a lot of this waste to get deductments. | 0neg
|
Over the past year, Uwe Boll has shown marginal improvement as a filmmaker, cranking out the competent "In the Name of the King" (a "Lord of the Rings" clone) and the proudly vulgar, post-9/11 satire "Postal." But then came "Seed," and the counter was reset to Zero, keeping his bid for legitimacy and respect that much further out of reach. And I'm a fan of the guyhis films exhibit a uniquely screwball vision, and are never dull.<br /><br />Spawned from his frustration over the savage notices his early films received, "Seed" is a colossally misguided attempt at social commentary, and an even worse jab at creating an iconic slasher mythology (Boll often seems to be taking a page from Rob Zombie's successful reboot of "Halloween"). The antagonist is Maxwell Seed (Will Sanderson), a mute, hulking brute who's slain 666 people and sits on death row, awaiting execution; after unsuccessfully frying the beast, he rises from the grave to seek revenge on those who put him there...and so begins a string of wholly gratuitous mayhem.<br /><br />Trying to create a new-millennium slasher in the vein of Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees, Max Seed is too nondescript and boring to leave an impression, ultimately resembling a washed-up pro wrestler doing "The Toolbox Murders" on a succession of equally boring victims. Furthermore, Seed's character and Boll's "message" run contrary to one another: the death penalty is wrong, sure, but are we really expected to sympathize with a soulless killer who's left a couple hundred corpses in his wake? I think not.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Michael Pare acts like a listless, long-lost brother to James Remar's character on "Dexter": a cop who sits at his desk a lot, thumbing through newspaper clippings, and watching pointless stop-motion scenes of decomposing animals and people trapped in Seed's lair. By the time he and a bunch of cardboard cops storm Seed's hideout, the sequence is so drawn-out, ill-conceived (the lighting is almost non-existent), and unexciting (despite a healthy dose of gore) that it almost put me to sleep.<br /><br />The shoddy film-making isn't limited to just that sequence: "Seed" appears to have been shot by a drunken cinematographer, since the camera bobs and weaves endlessly, a technique that's more stomach-turning than the gore itself; these protracted takes of very little happening only draw attention to the meandering, almost non-existent narrative. At 90 minutes, the film is distended enough to be considered a form of torture, which might have been Boll's intent all along.<br /><br />Pure genius...I guess the joke's on me. | 0neg
|
Short Version: Seed isn't worthless. It's just derivative and inferior. And soulless.<br /><br />Long Version: If you have never seen any of the films comprising the vaguely-defined "psychological horror" genre, this movie will probably melt your face off. Maybe not, but it will give you a good burn. The opening montage of real animal abuse will be sufficient to open your eyes to possibilities of brutality-on-video, and the (only) memorable gore scene later in the film will perhaps be more than you can handle. The climax will play with your emotions in a way that perhaps no other film has.<br /><br />But that's if you don't have much experience with the genre. If you've seen the real thing..."August Underground's Penance," for example, you will, as I did, find it terribly difficult to stay awake until the end of the film.<br /><br />Other reviewers have compared this to the video nasties of old. I understand this comparison. Like the video nasties, "Seed" is more violent than a mainstream horror film and less subtle. But the reason the video nasties are still known to us is not only for the above reasons--those that are still popular had something special. Permit me to be ambiguous, I think you will understand: those that have stuck around had "soul".<br /><br />Take this quote from Gabriele Crisanti, director of "Burial Ground," on an interview on the new-ish DVD: "...we will never have more films like these, because today, technology has surpassed imagination. And technology is cold. So many things will disappear because small films like these won't be produced anymore. Today we have great, exceptional tricks that are very expensive, but they are cold. Today a horror, a terror film of this kind costs more than a million dollars. These films were not so expensive...they are real effects, made with our hands".<br /><br />Perhaps it is wrong to take the comparison to old school horror so seriously. But Crisanti has hit the nail on the head. Even at their most seemingly exploitational, the best of the video nasties were pursuing a primitive "truth." And this is where Boll falls short. It's like he's seen the movies and not understood them. Everything on the checklist is there...BS about "making a statement about humanity," an obscene torture scene, etc. But it is, as Crisanti puts it, "cold." The gore is all CGI. The whole thing feels like scenes pieced together from other movies of various genres. And the pacing is sooooo slow. Man, so slow.<br /><br />Another interesting note: the one gore scene really reminded me of a video game.<br /><br />Anyway, enough BS. Weak movie. | 0neg
|
While not as bad as his game-to-movie adaptations, this hunk of crud doesn't fare much better.<br /><br />Boll seems to have a pathological inability to accept that he doesn't make good movies. One of these days he'll run out of money and stop inflicting the world with his bombs.<br /><br />The acting was sub-par, the dialog sounded like they were reading TelePrompTers and Boll's special little 'touches' were seen throughout the whole thing.<br /><br />Like all Uwe Boll movies, this one just shouldn't exist.<br /><br />Plain and simple.<br /><br />Just like Uwe Boll himself shouldn't exist. >_> | 0neg
|
Hello. this is my first review for any movie i have seen. i went through the trouble of doing this to tell everyone that this is quite literally, the most disgusting movie i have ever seen. I feel like the movie was porely made, which i will give some understanding due to budget constraints on making it. I felt like i was watching a very bad remake of the movie saw. Which i can agree, saw as well is also very graphic, but, i did like the movie saw.<br /><br />The scene where he takes the hammer to the head of the tied up victim in the chair is the most disturbing scene i have seen. the scene lasted almost forever, well actually, it was probably around 5 min but still. i want to note that i like some horror movies and i do give credit if they are good. this director uwe boll, and his group of people used to make this movie should think it over before making another one similar to this one. one final note haha!! FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ENJOY WATCHING ANIMALS BEATIN TO DEATH, LETTING ROT, WITH WOMEN AND CHILDREN AS WELL AND A FIVE MINUTE SCENE OF SOMEONE GETTING THERE HEAD SMASHED IN WITH A HAMMER then you will enjoy this movie, if not, and you like horror, go with a higher budget film, like saw for example. I cant believe people actually make movies like this. anyway sorry to anyone who loves uwe boll and took it to heart, this is just my opinion on the movie. | 0neg
|
The name Uwe Boll is automatically linked to bad horror/cult cinema and every new movie he releases which is about two, three per year immediately always receives negative ratings and harsh criticism. You're actually almost tempted to think this is just a contemporary hype. You know, like it's popular to hate Uwe Boll whether you liked his movies or not. Let me just assure you that this is NOT the case. Uwe Boll is a terrible writer/director and quite frankly a menace to the entire film-making industry. "Seed" is another most unfortunate of proof that. In here, Boll tries so desperately hard to come across as controversial and shocking that he overlooks numerous other elements that any movie essentially needs to exist, like a plot, a narrative structure, character development, tension building
"Seed" is a hideous movie, full of gratuitous filth and incompetent padding footage. I once read that "Seed" was Uwe Boll's interpretation of the nowadays popular horror trend of Torture Porn flicks, but that's not even close. The film inarguably does borrow some influences from "Saw" and "Hostel", but basically it's just another umpteenth dull slasher with an indestructible killer and video game violence. <br /><br />The first 45 minutes of "Seed" are beyond boring and actually just confirm all the obvious things you already knew were going to happen. For you see, Boll was stupid enough to begin his film with a (hyper- fast) scrolling text explaining there's a federal US law claiming that death row prisoners have to be set free if three attempts to electrocute them fail. So you know this will happen later on, but still the first three quarters are wasted on catching a serial killer and bringing him to the electric chair. Seed is a mute serial killer who supposedly slaughtered 666 victims (exaggerate much?) who wears a bag over his head. He watches real-life animal cruelty footage (and thus WE watch real-life animal cruelty footage; thanks for that Mr. Boll) and videotapes people as the slowly decompose in their cellar (including a crying baby which is really sick and twisted). When he's finally captured, during the most amateurish and implausible police manhunt ever filmed, and put on death row, the film even becomes more retarded. After being buried alive because the electric chair couldn't fry him, Max Seed crawls back to the surface and goes on a brand new killing spree; this time mainly focusing on the people who arrested and executed him. <br /><br />The senseless plot twists and complete lack of story depth of this movie go way past being just bad; they're downright infuriating and insulting the intelligence level of the average horror movie fanatic. Multiple twists and sub plot in "Seed" are simply impossible to accept by the reasonable functioning human mind because they're just too dumb! Nobody believes that cops and prison staff members will just bury a mass murderer alive without shooting a few bullets through his head first. Nobody will accept that a fugitive convict cannot be found for another six months even though he went straight back to the exact same hideout place where they first caught him! "Seed" is full of retarded little things like these and the movie gets dumber with each minute that passes. Personally, I refuse to accept that the cast & crew members didn't notice this as well. It really makes you think that Uwe Boll simply neglects all advice and criticism, and just stubbornly shoots his movies the way he wants to. I imagine his yelling stuff like "shut up and do as you are told" to his actors whenever they remark that the scene they're shooting doesn't make a lick of sense. <br /><br />Just for the fun of upsetting people, there's a gigantically overlong sequence where Max Seed smashes an elderly lady to death with a hammer whilst she's tied up to a chair in the middle of her own living room. Instead of shocking, as Boll intended it to be, this sequence masterfully epitomizes how pathetic and wannabe controversial the whole film in fact is. "Seed" is horrendous, it's disgusting, it's pitiable, it's
Boll. | 0neg
|
badly directed garbage. a mediocre nihilist sadistic gorefest ... if you are the sort of person who likes that ... see a shrink. even if you are that person it doesn't make this a good film, the acting is really poor, the story full of plot holes, the director really should just give up and find a real job as he has no talent for this one. I can see why people dislike uwe boll .. we have had a few of his films on lately and this is the best of them, which is really sad! A complete absence of any sort of humanity seems to suit some people but here it just grates. Horror films can be full of desolation, they can be miniature works of art, they can be just good viewing when there is nothing else on ... SEED is just really really poor. | 0neg
|
From the beginning of the movie I had a feeling like its a movie about another Jason's from Friday the 13th. And It is... Dispute that the movie starts interesting. But as the times goes by its just a pointless movie about muted, supernatural, silent serial killer. I mean he goes under the guy's bed without making any sound, not seen by anyone. He was supposed to be blind after failed execution but he walks and kills people like he used to. I'm tired of it. For me it's all over the same thing.<br /><br />In another words - unreal. Too many mistakes and confusing information.<br /><br />Well scene with tide up woman looked impressive but just at first time :} For that and for intriguing intro 2 stars. | 0neg
|
This movie is unbelievably ridiculous. I love horror movies, but this is the worst one I've ever seen. I am a huge fan of gore, but most of the deaths in this movie aren't shown. It just shows us the already dead bodies, and the only death scenes that they actually show in this movie are terrible. The graphics look so obviously fake. The actors are awful as well. There is no real emotion from any of them. Not only did I waste my time watching this piece of sh*t movie, but I had to subject myself to actual footage of animals being beaten during the beginning of it. If I could rate this a -10, I would. F*ck this movie. It's crap. <br /><br />Don't watch it. | 0neg
|
After having seen and loved Postal (yes, I actually loved Postal), I decided to try another Uwe Boll film and I picked out Seed because I happened to stumble on it in a local DVD-store and it's supposed to be one of his better films.<br /><br />While the first 10 to 15 minutes of the film were very promising and seemed like the beginning of a not too mainstream psychological thriller, it soon went downhill from there and eventually degraded into one of the most generic slasher films I've seen so far, including a massive amount of plot holes, unrealistic emotional responses and sub-par acting. It seems like Boll tried his best to come up with a decent plot but after a while just gave up on it. Maybe he should stick to comedy?! The few good things about this film is that he does manage to create an overall creepy atmosphere, that the special effects are better than I expected and the soundtrack does go well with the overall atmosphere, but the unbalanced pacing of this film combined with the utter generic nature thereof makes he last half hour quite tedious to watch, which ruined my experience altogether. There are a very fairly well done shocking scenes, but they seem to be there for the shock value alone. And let's not forget the camera work that was pretty nauseating at times.<br /><br />I hope Uwe Boll will one day learn what makes a good film, because between a lot of horrible films he does seem to make a decent film every now and then. Seed just isn't one of those. | 0neg
|
If at least the cruelty and drawn out deaths had a purpose to the story to justify their inclusion but the script was just unintelligible and just plain stupid.<br /><br />It went nowhere, the story had no legible continuity. It was just a bunch of drawn out pointless snuff scenes and a really stupid ending tacked on as if to say.. "the end *beep* you my haters and my few defenders for watching my garbage."<br /><br />I don't get it, a masked murderer who never had his mask removed in prison, a prison rape scene that was suppose to be the guards raping a a ugly deformed serial killer and getting killed by him and nothing else? no explanation, no punishment, a really weak main cop character that was a waste of a actor like Pare, who didn't try to off the guy who killed his cops, tortured a baby, a woman and a dog and sent them to you to watch on video.<br /><br />Cops who for some unknown reason all wandered off in the dark by themselves (individually) in his farm house at night like a bunch of poorly written teenage characters to be killed one at a time like a bunch of idiots, and no other cop hears them die in the darkness one after the other and just keep wandering around for no reason till each is killed in turn. <br /><br />A bunch of horrible real life animal snuff scenes in the beginning for no reason or explanation, was he reminiscing, was he watching it to masturbate, was it comedy for him... what was it? nope Boll just thought to throw it in to upset animal lovers.. whatever. <br /><br />then Pare believing the word of a psycho path to let his family go if he kills himself... a more gullible, stupider cop you never saw in a film. <br /><br />I dunno why I try not to totally hate his works. I try to find some reason to explain a horror writers art but this stuff... pure crap. <br /><br />Boll what are you doing anymore? I hope you figure it out because I know a lot of more deserving people who can't dream to get the budget you get over and over again to make their movies.<br /><br />If you want to see Boll actually at his best check out "Postal" it was actually okay. | 0neg
|
I was so disturbed by the real footage at the beginning of the film that I felt sick to my stomach and ended up shutting the movie off. How any can give this film more than a rating of 1 baffles me. I know that the intent of the movie is to shock, but showing actual footage of a dog that had been skinned alive (holding back vomit as I type) - PLEASE! I shut it off after the scene with the decomposing baby. I had had my eyes covered most of the time up to that point. No wonder this movie was found at the bargain bin in HMV. I really have no desire to see any other movie by this Uwe person. Anyone who enjoyed this needs therapy. Period. | 0neg
|
This would have to be one of the worst, if not the worst, movie I've ever nearly seen. (I couldn't watch it all the way through). Purely and simply it's gratuitous violence just for the sake of it and the ridiculous story line only adds to the lacklustre and incompetent filming. Sick. And only suitable for those with a love for manic mutilation. After murdering several hundred men, women and children, Seed is finally caught after effortlessly killing several more police officers that finally get a tip as to his whereabouts. He's sentenced to death by electric chair and miraculously survives! Buried alive, he digs his way out and plots revenge against those that put him away and flicked the switch. Needless to say, more gruesome murders ensue... | 0neg
|
"Seed" is torture porn...no doubt about it. But, strangely, Uwe Boll has written, produced, and directed a more polished film than any other he has made in recent memory.<br /><br />Every time I watch a Boll film, I feel that some pages of the script must have gone missing. There are simply huge gaps in the story and dialogue. Of course, nothing makes much sense, either. The films are somewhat surreal in this respect.<br /><br />*****SPOILERS***** <br /><br />Why do the six cops who go to arrest Seed split up and go their separate ways when they get to the darkened residence, unlike real cops who would enter and clear the house in pairs or by threes? Why don't the cops ever use their radios? How can the bodies decay so quickly, a process that would normally take many months? (I KNOW it's time-lapse photography...but Seed would never be able to stay on schedule killing people if he always waited around for the previous victim to decay to the point shown.) How come Seed gets to wear bib-overalls and a mask while he's waiting on death row instead of typical prison uniforms? How can Seed enter a maximum security prison, stroll around the cell block, and then walk out again without being stopped or even noticed? If nearly 80 people (according to some newspaper articles shown in the movie) have been murdered, why is there only one investigator working on the case? Why did the investigator suddenly decide that he should go look for Seed at Seed's house, where he was originally arrested and where he murdered his victims? (Didn't he think of doing this sooner?) Why does the police detective go it solo, without back-up and without even letting dispatch know what he was doing and where he was headed?<br /><br />This is particularly frustrating when Boll obviously goes far out of his way to make sure we understand why the electric chair fails to work properly. He spends several screen minutes in setting this up, when he could have spent them making other aspects of the film at least a bit more logical.<br /><br />*****END SPOILERS***** <br /><br />In short, the film just sort of serves as a framework for a few assorted scenes (perhaps Boll would think of these as his "visions") of a brutal death by bludgeoning, gunshots to the head, execution by electrocution, and the skinning of live animals raised for their pelts. (The opening scenes of animals being skinned were indeed unnecessary and disturbing, but I understand their purpose in the context of the film.) The centerpiece is undoubtedly the bludgeoning death of a middle-aged woman by Seed using a hatchet. It's obvious that much time was spent on this and it vaguely reminds me of the classic scene in "Reservoir Dogs", though without the Steely Dan soundtrack.<br /><br />Is this a good movie? No. Is it worth seeing? Only if you are a dedicated fan of the torture porn genre or if you are absolutely determined to see a sample of torture porn. As I said at the start of this review, even though this movie is pretty disgusting and can be sickening at points, it is truly much more competent than most of Boll's movies. Perhaps he will continue to improve as a filmmaker. I can only hope that he progresses beyond torture porn and continues more in the vein of "Postal". | 0neg
|
This movie shows a clip of live animal mutilation of an animal getting hacked by a machete and getting its skin ripped off. I know these horrible things happen in the world, but Im watching movies based on the fact that what Im watching is not actually happening on the screen. These live animal clips are not meant to be in movies, they are meant to show people that belong to certain organizations to help the horrible things that humans to do other species.<br /><br />This should be banned and destroyed. I have also contacted Netflix and other resources to collaborate getting this movie off the market!!<br /><br />This movie should be removed from the public. The person who made this movie needs psychological help. | 0neg
|
Set in the 70s, "Seed" centers around convicted serial killer Max Seed (Will Sanderson), who killed 666 people in 6 years. He is sentenced to death, but in the electric chair he doesn't die, even after being shocked three times.<br /><br />Detective Matt Bishop (Michael Paré) and other officers cover up this secret by burying Seed alive. Seed breaks out and goes after the people who put him in his living coffin.<br /><br />Filmed by the worst director in the world (Uwe Boll), "Seed" is nothing more than a snuff film about trying to stretch the envelope of decent society and fails to deliver in any aspect of a storyline. And he said this is based on true events because if a person survives the electric chair after being shocked three times, they will be set free. This is an urban legend, and it would never happen. Much like Boll's other abominations ("Alone in the Dark" for one), "Seed" is just utterly horrendous. | 0neg
|
My god, what's going on? a Uwe Boll film and positive comments? Wow!<br /><br />Nice to note that most of the positive reviews are coming from newbies to Boll's work. I myself, as I have stated in previous Uwe Boll reviews, only watch his films in the hope that one day he will actually make something good. I mean..IT MUST HAPPEN ONE DAY!<br /><br />Alas, Seed is not that day. I don't quite know where to start with the lame attempt at a horror film that Seed is. The thing to remember people is that all the sickos in the world are that way due to having watched various sick acts on video or the net.....or so Mr Boll believes. I still can't for the life of me figure out why footage of real animal abuse and killings was needed in the first 10 minutes of this film. I understand the concept that Seed (the killer) is a sicko and enjoys watching such stuff.....but can't understand why Mr Boll thought putting REAL footage in the film would work. Maybe to shock us? Hmmm.....well, I for one am not squeamish and can handle seeing anything on film. I DON'T though, find the use of real animal cruelty footage entertaining in the slightest. If you were trying to shock me, it didn't work. It just reminded me how messed up the world was because such things happen and also because Uwe Boll is allowed to continue making films. This sort of context may have worked for films in the 70/80's (Cannibal Holocaust) but not todays market.<br /><br />With that out of the way, we can move on to the fact that Uwe has managed to give the film a very cheap feel all round like BloodRayne 2. You can just tell that there wasn't a huge amount of money floating around for production.<br /><br />As per usual, Mr Boll does not really care for making a decent story as we are treated to boring shots of police officers watching various videos of Seed's victims in the first 25 mins. Each of these videos ends in a speeded up decomp of the victim. It's all very boring and tedious. I won't comment on the toddler scene as it's laughable and just another cheap 'shock' factor.<br /><br />If you manage to sit through the first 25 mins then you will be treated to the police officers walking through a very dark house in order to catch Seed. The lighting here is horrible and Uwe has the old 'I'm not using a steady cam' fiasco that he did with BloodRayne 2. Watch as the police officers die in ever stupidly increasing ways until such point as Seed is caught. This scene is soooo bloody stupid you have to see it to believe it. The cop actually tells Seed he could have shot him. For some un-be-known reason, the cop doesn't shoot him. Given that Seed is a sicko that kills kids as well as adults, you'd have thought at this point in the script that sense would prevail.<br /><br />From here we are treated to a stupid execution scene, followed by the cops burying Seed alive (and they know he is alive..why not shoot him in the head????), followed by Seed getting out of the ground and then killing some random woman with a hammer and then kidnapping the one of the cop's family.<br /><br />What I'm trying to get across to you all here is that it's just plain STUPID! It's not even Hollywood horror stupid....just plain dumb. Uwe Boll can not direct ****. Anyone with any ounce of taste would agree with that statement. Anyone who watches this film and found it entertaining in any way shape or form needs to take a serious look at themselves as a person. <br /><br />Once again we are treated to a poorly acted, directed, lighted, produced, scripted piece of UB crap. | 0neg
|
I quote Oedpius Rex because it is a tragedy that this film was even made!!!<br /><br />This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! I am in no way an Uwe Boll hater like most of the humourless people on IMDb! <br /><br />Uwe Boll movies like Postal and Tunnel Rats are hilariously bad and therefore entertaining. But honestly, this movie was just horrible. I hated it so much that I'd give it a zero star rating if I could. The story is just crap! It spends four fifths of the film building the plot and then they have the middle which is just scenes of grizzly horrible tastelessly done murder! The finally end it with a "villan wins ending" which is totally acceptable but surely it could have been more tasteful than this! <br /><br />I am not against Uwe Boll (like I said earlier) nor am I against violent movies! I f**king love violent movies! I loved the Saw movies, the Hostel movies, Tokyo Gore Police, The New York Ripper, the 28 movies, Dog Soldiers, My Bloody Valentine, Last House on the Left, Watchmen, Wolf Creek, every Tarantino movie, every Sam Peckinpah, even Cannibal f**king Holocaust! But this! OMFG!!! <br /><br />This was just cruel, sadistic and perverted! And look at the movies I just listed! If I liked Cannibal Holocaust and not this then it must be bad! Uwe, don't go all dark again! You're funny when you are light hearted, just like Ed Wood. This was just an awful experience! I felt horrible all over after seeing this!<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH!!!! AVOID AT ALL COST!!!!! | 0neg
|
I am ashamed to have this movie in my collection. The most redeeming factor to owning the DVD is the short film in the bonus features. My vote for this movie is a big fat ZERO. Don't misunderstand, I'm a horror girl. but i want some meat behind the story, not to mention i prefer the evil to happen to humans, not to be tricked in to watching, what seemed like forever, clips of animal snuff. Acts of brutality interrupt achingly long silence and poor acting. If i was forced to make a comparison to another film, the only one that comes to mind is Cannibal Holocaust. Bad, boring, pointless and a wholly uncomfortable watch. | 0neg
|
If you like to see animals being skinned alive, their heads smashed, dogs throats being crushed my men stomping on them, then this one is for you! But if you are somewhat normal, and don't need to see real footage of animal cruelty, pass this one up. This movie tries to shock the viewer, and it sure does.With the animal snuff at the beginning, and the killing of babies in the movie (fake at least)its was enough to make myself turn it off.I've seen movies like this before that show slaughterhouse footage (BTK movie) and this kind of footage should not be allowed in a horror movie.We watch gore and horror because we know its just make-up, and special effects, so we shouldn't sit down to watch a movie and see the real killing of animals, its not what we rented the movie for.If anything, there should be a large warning label put on these types of garbage movies so people won;t be surprised by it. As a very hardcore horror fan, this one turned my stomach. The entire movie cast and crew need their heads checked. | 0neg
|
The only reason "The Norliss Tapes" deserves ANY stars is the presence of Angie Dickinson in the cast. Other than getting to see Angie Baby in a pre-"Police Woman" performance, there's nothing else worth seeing here.<br /><br />THE SYNOPSIS:<br /><br />*** MINOR SPOILERS ***<br /><br />David Norliss is tapped to write a book on the supernatural. One day he mysteriously disappears after phoning his publisher and suggesting he has stumbled across something that has placed him in mortal danger. The entire series for which this miserable pilot was written was apparently intended to be a series of flashbacks via the "Norliss tapes" -- a set of audio tapes the writer recorded while investigating cases of the supernatural.<br /><br />In the pilot episode, a wealthy sculptor dies -- but not before purchasing an ancient Egyptian scarab ring from a local occultist who assures him the bauble will give him immortality after death. We soon discover the ring itself doesn't grant immortality. Instead, it only reanimates the sculptor's corpse, allowing him to escape his crypt so he can run around town draining pretty girls of all their blood.<br /><br />Blue-faced, yellow-eyed and growling out ARRRGHHHHHHs you haven't heard since you last watched "Scooby Doo" cartoons, the sculptor attacks his wife (Dickinson) one dark night. She escapes and, via a mutual acquaintance, contacts Norliss to get his assistance in solving the mystery behind her late husband's uncanny reappearance on her estate.<br /><br />So is this guy a vampire? No. There's no vampire in this story despite what you may have read or heard. The sculptor doesn't drink his victims' blood -- he collects it. How? Don't know. We only see him attacking, never collecting. Why? To fulfill the second part of his bid for immortality. It turns out the reanimated sculptor will only be allowed to live forever if he builds a life-size statue of a demon named Sargoth out of a mixture of clay and human blood. Once it's finished, Sargoth plans to inhabit the statue, using it as his gateway into our world.<br /><br />THE FINAL ANALYSIS:<br /><br />"The Norliss Tapes" wasn't picked up as a series for a very good reason... it was garbage. As you can see from my synopsis, the story is a paltry, ill-conceived mess. The acting and dialogue offer no better. This isn't even a contender for a "So Bad It's Good" Award. Sometimes bad is just bad.<br /><br />After years of hearing underground rumblings about the great merits of "The Norliss Tapes," I was very excited to find it airing on Fox Movie Channel on 10/15/03. I wish I hadn't set myself up for the fall.<br /><br />Having screened this groaner for the first time two days ago, I can only assume any applause you've heard so far from other IMDB reviewers is coming from those who are reviewing the show based on dim memories and the nostalgia of youth. Or perhaps they are simply loyal fans of Dan Curtis. Either way, they've offered you misleading reviews of "The Norliss Tapes."<br /><br />Pauly Orchid -- October 17, 2003 | 0neg
|
The director, outfitted in chains and leather, warned the audience at the SF Frameline Film Festival Friday night that we were about to see an "experiental" film. Experimental? Leave the video camera on the back seat of the car, let the tape roll and edit in all the pointless dreck within eyesight. A meandering pastiche road show manqué that starts nowhere and takes the audience no place. The gratuitous violence that opens the movie drove more than one patron from the Castro theater. I would have left, too, but my cine-buddy needed a ride home and has this thing about seeing even the worse merde through to the end. By the time the lights came up the audience had thinned considerably. Tepid applause. Pro forma questions of the director who seemed pleased with the product. Avoid this film! | 0neg
|
First off - there's absolutely no flirting going on in this film - with Anthony or anyone else. These people don't flirt - they just do it. Your first test of endurance is to wade through more than 15 minutes of intense violence and sexual perversion. This wouldn't be so bad - hell, I like violence and perversion as much as the next reviewer, but without a context to put it in, it is repellent. So you make it through the torture and mayhem. Then we meet Donna and the movie turns into something all together different - not better - just different: a road picture without heart. There are lame attempts at comedy thanks to cameos - broadly written and broadly played by broads like Judy Tenuta and Mink Stole (and a few hookers and drag queens, too). They all deserve better. The photography is purposely disorienting, so if you get motion sickness (or really ANY kind of sickness) - this flick is not for you. Come to think of it, I'm not sure just who this flick IS for -except maybe gay and bi-sexual S&M fans who like poorly scripted, poorly shot indy films about themselves. | 0neg
|
Had I checked IMDb BEFORE renting this DVD from Netflix, I'd have a couple of hours of my life back. I'm frankly suspicious when I see that a film's director also wrote it. In this case, according to the credits, the same guy was "writter and director" - unfortunately, an indication of the overall quality of this production. There were a few interesting moments (e.g., Judy Tenuta's scene reminded of her early comedy routines touting Judy-ism) which led me to rate this two stars rather than one. Those moments, however, were few and far between ... and I almost did not get to see them because the opening sequence was nearly incomprehensible to me, not to mention reprehensible in its violence. I admit I went back to watch that part again to see if I had missed something that would help me figure it out once I'd seen the whole thing. Nope, though I at least recognized who the characters were who would turn out to be important later. The "spinning camera" technique was overused and essentially pointless. I found myself talking to the TV screen: "What?!?" or "For goodness sake, get ON with it!" Not recommended. | 0neg
|
I respect Alex Cox the filmmaker, I really do. He's like the kid at school who you think at first is just trying a little too hard to be "different", a literary punk-rocker who has dipped more than his feet into spaghetti westerns and science fiction and fringe-culture and come out into the world ready to take s*** on... but then you see what he can actually do, the talent and raw feverish artistry and moments of true absurd hilarity capable of him, and you are ready to see whatever he has to offer. But there's two sides to his proverbial coin: he can either really hit it out of the park (Repo Man, Sid & Nancy, Walker arguably) or just try just a little too hard and pull way too many pretentious rabbits out of the hat (Straight to Hell). Death and the Compass falls into the latter category, and while I respect its (mostly) original approach to tackling a detective-killer story, it too falls on its face and its weirdness becomes oddly dull.<br /><br />It has a strange enough set-up and already irreverent style to follow: a detective, Erik Lonnrot, is after a killer with a hell-fire voice, Red (something), and it seems that the killer is leaving disturbing clues with his victims: scrawled in blood on the walls are messages that, according to eyewitness Alonso Zunz (Christopher Eccleston looking as if he just walked off Shallow Grave without changing his look) has religious significance in the Kabbalah. We follow Lonnrot on his case, and his methods of going after the perp, which include following at first a triangular and then compass-shaped pattern on the map- this despite the protests of the flabbergasted Commissioner Treviranus (Miguel Sandoval), who also looks back in flash-forwards sitting at a desk and speaking to the audience in garbled but sad descriptions of his former employee and colleague after the fact of the case.<br /><br />Oh, Cox has his moments of creativity and interest, such as a shot where we see the entire scope of the harrowing depths of the police station where Eccleston's character is taken in by handcuffs ("For his own protection" says Lonnrot in case of getting lost in the wrong room) and we're followed in a long tracking shot- maybe the best or just most curious- where we're taken through very dark hallways with very little direction, lost in the maze of turns and oddities among the characters. And it's never something that isn't fascinating to *look* at, with Miguel Garzon's cinematography a morbid delight. But The plot goes through hoola-hoops to keep things so off-beat it might as well be beat-less all-together. The performances, save for a confident Boyle and for Eccleston at the very end, are pretty bad, especially Sandoval who just seems to squirm in his seat reciting the goofy dialog given to him to speak at the audience.<br /><br />While the murder plot itself contains an intention for the audience that this isn't something we've seen before, that it's in a society with a good many rioters and architecture suggesting Alphaville's next decrepit wave, it too fizzle's out very quickly. What's the conflict here? I was never that much engaged with Boyle's own personal mission to find this killer, and only mildly caught up in the few flashes of deranged scenes of the killer (and/or killers) going after people like in the building early on (Cox himself has an amusing cameo). And just when I started to think it was leading up to something spectacular, with Boyle and Eccleston in that big ("not as big as you think") building in the South section of the city, it suddenly gives us a "TWIST" that we know in the back of our minds is coming but hope isn't, and it deflates any of the humdrum mystery it's been leading up to. For all of Cox's uncanny touches as a filmmaker, for all of his opposition to spoon-feeding the audience with a 'conventional' approach, which I do respect, Death and the Compass ultimately cuts one off at the brain-stem; it's masturbatory. | 0neg
|
This wilfully bizarre adaptation of Borges short story is typical Cox. His strong visual sense is, as usual, undone by the appalling half baked acting of most of the cast. The film is definitely in the surreal tradition of Bunuel's Mexican period, and looks at times like a poor man's take on Lars Von Trier's Elements of Crime. Cox's apparent preference for single takes, jump cuts, and ambient sound recording all work against the film's effectiveness. Worth a look but ultimately disappointing. | 0neg
|
I liked Boyle's performance, but that's about the only positive thing I can say. Everything was overdone to the point of absurdity. Most of the actors spoke like you would expect your 9-year-old nephew to speak if he were pretending to be a jaded, stone-hearted cop, or an ultra-evil villain. The raspy voice-overs seemed amateurish to me. I could go buy a cheap synthesizer and crank out better opening music. And what's with the whole 1984ish police torture stuff? It was totally superfluous and had nothing to do with the actual events of the story. Cox added a lot of things, in fact, that he apparently thought would be really cool, but had nothing to do with the story. That's a big disappointment because one of the things that makes Borges' stories so good is his minimalism -- they are tightly bound, with no superfluous details. This movie is just the opposite. I stopped watching after the scene where Lonnrot is questioning the guy from the Yidische Zaitung, or thereabouts. I wasted $4 renting this, but at least I can get some satisfaction from writing this review and hopefully saving others from making the same mistake. | 0neg
|
This is to the Zatoichi movies as the "Star Trek" movies were to "Star Trek"--except that in this case every one of the originals was more entertaining and interesting than this big, shiny re-do, and also better made, if substance is more important than surface. Had I never seen them, I would have thought this good-looking but empty; since I had, I thought its style inappropriate and its content insufficient. The idea of reviving the character in a bigger, slicker production must have sounded good, but there was no point in it, other than the hope of making money; it's just a show, which mostly fails to capture the atmosphere of the character's world and wholly fails to take the character anywhere he hasn't been already (also, the actor wasn't at his best). I'd been hoping to see Ichi at a late stage of life, in a story that would see him out gracefully and draw some conclusion from his experience overall; this just rehashes bits and pieces from the other movies, seasoned with more sex and sfx violence. Not the same experience at all. | 0neg
|
When I read MOST of the other comments, I felt they were way too glowing for this movie. I found it had completely lost the spark found in the earlier Zatoichi movies and just goes to prove that after a long absence from the screen, it's often best to just let things be. I completely agreed with the Star Trek analogy from another reviewer who compared the FIRST Star Trek movie to the original series---millions of excited fans were waiting and waiting and waiting for the return of the show and were forced to watch a bland and sterile approximation of the original.<br /><br />The plot is at times incomprehensible, it is terribly gory (though the recent NEW Zatoichi by Beat Takeshi is much bloodier) and lacks the heart of the originals. I didn't mind the blood at all, but some may be turned off by it (particularly the scenes with the severed nose and the severed heads). In addition, time has not been good to Ichi--he seems a broken and sad man in this film (much, much more than usual)--and that's something fans of the series may not really want to see.<br /><br />This was a very sorry return for Zatoichi. Unless you are like me and want to see EVERY Zatoichi film, this one is very skipable. See one of the earlier versions or the 2003 ALL-NEW version. | 0neg
|
The premise, while not quite ludicrous, WAS definitely ridiculous. What SHOULD have occurred, by the second encounter with Tritter was that Tritter should simply be wasted. House hires some guy and de-physicalizes Tritter. In real life, Tritter would have been hauled up for harassment, the rectal thermometer episode would have been exposed in court, providing motive and opportunity and the hospitals lawyers would have made mincemeat out of Tritter and the particular department he worked for. He would be in prison as would anyone complicit in the harassment of House, Chase, Foreman, Cameron, Wilson and Cuddy. The lawsuit would have won House a tasty settlement, enough to keep him supplied with Vicadin well into his old age. While Tritter would wind up somewhere driving a cab, trying to rehabilitate himself by doing good for people for two years before people tumbled to the fact that they'd seen it all before. | 0neg
|
I am glad to read so many negative comments about the Tritter plot. Everyone I talk to says the same thing. They like House's gruff nature and his intelligence, but really dislike the vindictiveness of this continuing plot. It cuts into the real nature of the hospital story and makes everyone angry at police authority. It needs to have a more caring nature instead of the vindictiveness to everyone at the hospital. Also, there seems to be many questionable legal aspects to what Tritter is actually doing. He alone cannot freeze accounts and have the authority to stop doctors from writing prescriptions for patients. A lot of the vindictiveness he is showing also is hurting the very sick patients at the hospital and the is not a good storyline to portray. I voted the episode awful not because of the story itself, but when you insert the Trittor piece it turns me off and the rest of the plot gets hurt by it, People say they hate to watch the story lines anymore. Please change it. Get Tritter out. | 0neg
|
A disappointing end to a season that started so well ...<br /><br />Exodus part 2 and other notable episodes were amongst the best seen on TV in any series, where as this was rather bad.<br /><br />Well I am not sure if it was the episode that was a disappointment, but the cheesy guitar music at that accompanied the closing sequence was laughable and would have been more at home in the original series.<br /><br />Its almost as if the corporate execs didn't like the low key down note ending and wanted to jazz it up. They failed and rather spoilt everything.<br /><br />Lets hope this is not a trend for the future.<br /><br />Still at least we saw the return of a certain person even if somewhat bizarrely and tritely done. | 0neg
|
"Laugh, Clown Laugh" released in 1928, stars the legendary Lon Chaney as a circus clown named Tito. Tito has raised a foundling (a young and beautiful Loretta Young) to adulthood and names her Simonetta. Tito has raised the girl in the circus life, and she has become an accomplished ballerina. While Chaney gives his usual great performance, I could not get past the fact that Tito, now well into middle age, has the hots for the young Simonetta. Although he is not her biological father, he has raised her like a daughter. That kind of "ick" factor permeates throughout the film. Tito competes for Simonetta's affections with a young and handsome 'Count' Luigi (Nils Asther). Simonetta clearly falls for the young man, but feels guilt about abandoning Tito (out of loyalty, not romantic love). The whole premise of the film is ridiculous, and I find it amazing that no one in the film tells Tito what a stupid old fool he is being (until he reveals it himself at the end). The film is noteworthy only because of Loretta Young, who would go on to have a great career. While I adore Chaney's brilliance as an actor, this whole film seems off to me and just downright creepy. | 0neg
|
I'm a great admirer of Lon Chaney, but the screen writing of this movie just did not work for me. The story jumps around oddly (I've since learned that the film is missing a section), and characters appear and disappear with irritating suddenness. Some of the intertitles are overly explanatory (e.g., "why, you're not a child anymore!"--cut back to picture for a long, slow beat--"you're a woman!" yes, we got it the first time) but there are a few talking sequences that beg for explanations that never appear. (Let's hear Luigi and his blond girlfriend's argument, please!) The plot, which involves incestuous desires (figuratively if not technically) was disturbing to the point that it was hard to watch. To the writer's credit, this issue was treated as a problem, and a May-December match is not portrayed as the right-and-good inevitability of some Mary Pickford films (e.g., "Daddy-Long-Legs"). Chaney gives a good performance, as usual, but I think he has been better-directed in the past--he overdid it a few times here, IMHO. I did enjoy the clown sequences, and was very impressed at the stunts. Loretta Young was charming, though astonishingly young. The film has its moments, but so far, it's my least-favorite Chaney picture. | 0neg
|
Ziab la ta'kol al lahem is an awful movie.This is only a superposition of scenes without a clear link.Acting is also very bad, despite the presence of a good actor like Ezzat El allayli. But something is really astonishing in this movie, talking about sexuality, emancipation of women, nude scenes are very rare in Arab cinema,even in this days. I really congratulate the director and the actors for their courage. We want to see more of this style in Egyptian movies, but with better quality. The reasons that led me to vote this film as an awful one are not only scenario and acting, but also the lack of prfessionalism. This movie look like an amateur one.We can see a lot of errors in the screen. If you want a good arab movie Ziab la ta'kol al lahm is not the one recommended.But if you wish to encourage the uncensored movies in all the arab world watch it and make your friends and your family do the same. | 0neg
|
The Egyptian Movies has A Lot Of Filmes With High Level Of Drama Or Romance Or Comedy Or Action Even Sports... "Ziab la Ta'Kohl AL lam" Was banned In Egypt Because It Content Nudity (Full Frontal Female Nudity) And This Kind Of Nudity Is Prohibited In The Egyptian Movies.. When I Saw this Movies I Felt Down... Fool Story.. Nude Actress.. Bad Action.. Some Horror & Awful Colors.. Dear Friend.. If You Wanna See A great Egyptian Movie...Simply: Stay Away Form "Ziab la Ta'Kohl AL lam".. We Have Great Movies In Egypt... We Have A Great Actors Who Won A Global Wins Like: Omar El Sheriff Or Gameel Rateb.. We Have Great Directors Like "Yousef Shahin" So Believe Me Pall.. You Don't Need To See This Movie.. | 0neg
|
I never heard of this film til it played as part of a Robert Mitchum retrospective at the National Film Theatre in London. Almost 60 years on the cast list looked tasty to say the least with seven names - in addition to top-billed Mitchum - in the public domain; Charles McGraw, not long off The Killers, Barbara Bel Geddes, long before Dallas and arguably still better known as the daughter of Theatre Set Designer Norman, Walter Brennan, who needed no introduction, Frank Faylen, the sadistic male nurse in The Lost Weekend and the much nicer small-town mensch in It's A Wonderful Life, Robert Preston still a decade away from Harold Hill in The Music Man with Tom Tully and Phyllis Thaxter making up the numbers. Alas, most of them were wasting their time. I looked in vain for any 'signature' scenes given that it was Robert Wise on bullhorn. By this time he'd made around a half dozen films and had still to find a style. The story is our old friend the range war and Mitchum must have thought it was barely a cut above the Hopalong Cassidy oaters on which he'd cut his teeth. There are no new twists - if you don't count the unbelievable scene when Mitchum accuses Preston of sleeping with Thaxter to gain information about her father's plans to move his cattle. This is perfectly true but how did Mitchum KNOW? We've seen or heard nothing to indicate how he discovered it. On balance not a lot to be said for this. | 0neg
|
Lets put it this way. I actually get this movie. I get what the writer/directer was trying to do. I understand that the dialog was meant to be dry and emotionless. I understand that the plot was supposed to be non-climactic and stale. That was what the writer/director was going for. A very very very dry humor/comedy. With all that understanding, I still think the movie sucked. It seemed like the writer/director was trying to recreate Napolean Dynamite with this movie. It had all of the same features. Even the main character behaved similar to Napolean. But Napolean Dynamite was actually funny. Its script worked. This movie is not. It has no purpose. Well, let me rephrase that. Its only purpose is to rip off Napolean Dynamite and try to capture that look and feel. Too bad it didn't work. | 0neg
|
This isn't a bad movie... but it's the type your girlfriend makes you watch. The story isn't bad .... it just makes the hour and a half seem so long. It's hard for me to trash this movie because I really do like the idea of it but it was just to long and thin on story... too bad. The main character never really seems to change all that much from beginning to end . I mean goes through something "life changing" and he can barely break a smile. I really thought Mac was really good. His weird quirkiness kept the movie from being a complete disaster. Maybe I just don't "get" this film. If anyone can explain it to me I'd love to be informed. | 0neg
|
In my life I have seen many great and awful movies. I am not an expert in professional reviews, but I have definitely something to say about this one. Firstly, these actors are the worst I have seen... Their acting is so unreal that you even want to throw away the DVD in the first 2 minutes. I think that these actors were not interested in the quality. <br /><br />Another awful thing is about these dialogs - they are so lame. You sometimes feel uncomfortable when you hear them. It seems that your 14 year old son could act better. I feel that this movie had a budget similar to the cost of my 14 year old European car...<br /><br />Please, if my message reaches you - save your time and money. | 0neg
|
William Shatner in small doses is tolerable. Unfortunately, instead of leaving his character as a minor irritation, and in that moderately amusing, it has been seen fit to enlarge his role and overdo it. Just as occurred in the original Star Trek series. I guess I will never understand American humour, which frequently goes 'over the top' to get the message through. I vote with my feet. I no longer watch the show, which is a shame, because the rest of the cast were good. It is pity that Shatner's overdone role also, affects James Spader's performance. But the majority demonstrate the way society is going, I guess. I don't travel the same routes. Frank | 0neg
|
I don't think this is too bad of a show under the right conditions. I tolerated the first season.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this is a show about lawyers who aren't really lawyers. God forbid anybody actually go to law school based on these shows, which I had heard was the case when I watched some interviews of the show. It just made me gag a bit.<br /><br />That aside, Spader and Shatner, who are supposed to be the stars of the show, are the most annoying. While this might be a compliment in some situations, it's certainly not here. Their constantly harassing the women on the show is funny at first. But since that's what they're doing literally all the time, I've realized that this is as deep as the show is going to get. Trying to intersperse some serious, dramatic, and even tear-jerking moments in the middle of this mockery of a real show fails to compensate for the progressive loss of interest I've been experiencing trying to enjoy the show.<br /><br />Alan Shore's flamboyant and gratuitous "public service announcements" where he spouts off his opinions do not impress. Denny Crane is just annoying. I was embarrassed for him and for the writers of the show for Crane's speech wearing a colonial outfit.<br /><br />I'm giving two stars because there are moments where I thought the show's attempts to deal with some contemporary issues were done with care.<br /><br />I think the show's writers became aware that the sexual harassment displayed by Denny and Alan was getting overbearing even to those who were more inviting of them from the start. The thing is, I don't care if the sexual harassment treatment in the show is done well, but I just felt that the writer was insulting me with artificially implanting sexual banters all over the show in the hopes that my libido will keep me coming back for more. I'm not a teenager anymore, and I think this show is promising if its goal wasn't to cater to the lowest common denominator to get ratings.<br /><br />Of course, I'm writing this after I realized that it's really not gonna get much better than this. It's a shame because it's one of those shows I'd love to love. | 0neg
|
Boston legal has turned its tail and is headed for the barn door and th pig slop it has created! When this show first aired almost four season back it was a humorous slap at the legal system which all actors seem to take pride in portraying. It was funny, diversified, and to some extent factual. The characters portrayed were acceptable and to an extent real in their portrayals. The sexual comment and activity were limited and humorous. Julie Bowen is and was beautiful as in other series she participated but is now dragged to the lower depths of Media programming of sex and violence. Julie is an excellent actress and needs a more stable platform than this "production". Rene Adjurdubois Is an excellent actor who has from the days of "Benson" to this production held his own in the field of entertainment, always showing the humor and respectful acting of the production. Captain Kirk "is". Funny and humorous is Candace Bergan and is to be admired for her continuing in this production and is a good actress. James Spader, there is no doubt in his acting ability, however he should go back to his XXX origins such as "Crash" as it appears he has much talent and inclination in that direction. We ask that this series be trashed as it already is and its really starting to smell!!! | 0neg
|
We purchased this series on DVD because of all of the glowing reviews we had seen here. I gave it three stars because there can be little doubt that sometimes the acting, directing and writing are brilliant. In fact they are so brilliant we did not see the propaganda that was being transmitted so smoothly on the series. If one watches it with discernment, one will see the entire litany of the radical right wing beliefs being promulgated by the Fox (Faux) News Network. To avoid giving away any spoilers I will refrain from pointing out all of the dozens of specific instances. A brief look at the plots found here on IMDb will disclose that everything from torture to gun control to the right of a network to provide "Infomercials" and call them news is justified with cute plot twists and impassioned speeches given by some of the best actors in the world. We watched many shows and finally gave up in disgust when they justified torture using Attorney General Gonzales as a shining example of why all kinds of torture should be used in the name of protecting all of us. The series also manages to demean male and female gays in subtle ways by using them as plot devices depicting evil people. All in all the complete litany of the radical religious right wing.<br /><br />No doubt the popularity of this program will be used by future historians as proof that America lost its way in the early part of the this century. As a student of history myself I would characterize this program as being in a league with the propaganda produced by Goebbels for Hitler and some of the propaganda produced by Hollywood for the American audience during WWII.<br /><br />So if you want to use this as a teaching tool to help your students understand how subtle propaganda can be then by all means do so. Just be sure to purchase an inexpensive used copy so you can avoid enriching the ultra right wingers at Faux Network who produced this travesty. | 0neg
|
Utterly predictable silly show about a man who has killed his wife by mowing her down when driving and claimed he had blacked out. Why was he still driving a car? Why did he still feel able to drive a car having killed his wife with one? This question has not occurred to the writers. The story then witters on about a psychologist and her failing marriage which is tied into the failing marriage of wife-killing blackout driver. An omniscient mother and one dimensional child are thrown in for good measure, and the whole builds up to a predictable denouement and crashing finale. Are police psychologists so easily taken in? Deadful writing that the actors do their best with, but they are doomed to failure. This is on a par with a Harlequin Romance. Don't waste your time watching this one unless that's what you are aiming for. | 0neg
|
"I thought I'd be locked away in a padded cell and they'd throw away the key" (Thus is a paraphrased snatch of dialogue from "State of Mind".<br /><br />One wonders in what tangled forest Paula Milne and her co-writer found the magic mushrooms they must have eaten, to create this feeble "whodunnit" and bring such rubbish to our screens. A padded cell should indeed be left available.<br /><br />Niamh Cusack did her best, (as did the other actors) but surely her talent deserves a better vehicle than this. The height of absurdity has been reached, and this particular "State of Mind" is best buried and forgotten, and certainly not just "placed in a box and locked away in a drawer". | 0neg
|
Whatever happened to British TV drama? From John Major through Tony Blair, the focus of the genre appears to have shifted from social realism to smugly normative women-focused tales about the piddling domestic problems of nice middle class professionals.<br /><br />(Or perhaps TVNZ doesn't buy the good stuff? Please let that be what it is...)<br /><br />The writer's long career in soaps probably explains why the dialogue is made up mostly of stale clichés. Niamh Cusack's performance is strong on meaningful looks, each held by the director for at least half a dozen beats longer than they deserve. Baleful looks, however, are a poor substitute for depth of character, if the writer has failed to provide such material for actors to work with. <br /><br />Of course this is theoretically a thriller, about a murder investigation; but that's not as important as the central character's failing marriage and its attendant problems. Is Cusack's character's husband a complete bastard? Will her son be utterly traumatized by the marriage break up? Making these the central issues isn't a sign of insight -- it indicates a profoundly narcissistic identification by the writer and director with a character who should be getting on with her job.<br /><br />Lynda La Plante knows how to write this stuff so that it feels as if it matters and involves viewers other than housebound neurotics ; evidently Paula Milne isn't up to the task. | 0neg
|
I own 2 home entertainment stores and I've seen a lot of bad movies in my time but this one was so bad it compelled me to register here and comment on it. How bad was it? Let's just say that Sofia Coppola deserved an Oscar for her performance in Godfather III when compared to Giada Colagrande's in this movie.<br /><br />It was robotic and uninspired. Her lover has just died one month prior to her arrival at the 'Rubber House' he had given her. Once there, she discovers he has cheated on her throughout her relationship but none of it seems to register with her. Within a day, she starts a relationship with Leslie, (Dafoe) the caretaker of the house. Even though she is married to Dafoe off screen, her scenes with him were cold and unemotional.<br /><br />If there was a plot, I missed it. Not even Willem Dafoe could save this movie from the amateur, cinematic train wreck that it is. | 0neg
|
This title seems more like a filming exercise than a film that should have been released to be seen by the public. For Dafoe and his wife it must have been fun working together in a film for the first time, without taking into consideration that people might actually watch it. I felt like it was 90mins wasted as I waited anxiously for a plot to develop, or even begin.<br /><br />Try to fit this film into a genre and you won't, because it lacks a beginning, middle or ending. I've seen 'arty' movies before and this doesn't even come close to being arty, abstract or original, it just seems to me to be completely pointless.<br /><br />I think it speaks for itself when the only persons that rated this film a 10 were the under 18 age group. No doubt for the constant pointless erotic scenes that the film was insistent on throwing at us. That is if you can call it erotic. It certainly didn't have taste. | 0neg
|
Predictable, told a thousand times story with the usual drama in between, a couple of pretty raunchy sex scenes intermingled with some character paranoia, 70's style incidental violin horror music that is comical at times, i couldn't help chuckling to myself.<br /><br />I usually like Defoe, and it has to be said that the acting is not all that bad, the "plot" develops at a reasonable pace and does keep you guessing from time to time. Its just that it's all too predictable, i felt like i was watching a made for TV drama instead of a new movie. Maybe thats the style the directors wanted, but it has to be said that the review i read on here before i saw the movie could only have been written by someone involved in its production.<br /><br />Don't expect too much, and if i could wind the clock back i wouldn't have gone to see it at the cinema. I would wait for the bargain bins at your video shop, I'm sure it wont take long. | 0neg
|
I am a huge Willem Dafoe fan, and really sought out this film (I had to get a Region 5 Chinese DVD of it!). But, it is truly one of the worst that I've seen in quite a while.<br /><br />The acting (except for Dafoe) is horrible. Dafoe and Colagrande BOTH wrote and directed this ( though he isn't credited as a director), and they have NO discernible talents for writing or directing. (Stick to acting Willem; Giada get out of the business, PLEASE!)<br /><br />Absolutely nothing happens. Except a series of completely unconvincing, totally without believable motivation, acts by these two people (that just met) in this house. Colagrande's sleepy, I couldn't care less expression practically NEVER changes. And the sex scenes are downright lame. I actually cringed twice at one of them. Yuck! They're definitely not the least bit erotic, and yet are the only time the film isn't putting you to sleep. Then, it's busy repulsing you.<br /><br />Just awful. | 0neg
|
I saw this movie today at the Haifa Film Festival in Israel after hearing rave reviews, but I guess the critics were just sucking up to Willem Defoe and his wife (the director) who were present at the festival. It is definitely the slowest movie I have ever seen with numerous pointless, ridiculously long scenes of nothing. Besides Defoe who was decent, the acting of the two and a half other people in the movie, Defoe's wife Giada included, was ridiculously awful (how they cast the part of the salesgirl at the bakery is beyond me). This movie is pretty much plot less with a lame attempt to be abstract and off the wall. The only scene that stirred any kind of reaction in the crowd was vulgar and came from nowhere as if just to add some kind of shock value to the dullness that is this movie. Sorry for being so harsh, but really this movie is a precious waste of time and money. I appreciate good indie cinema, but this movie is not worthy of moviegoers' time. | 0neg
|
Only one thing could have redeemed this sketch. A healthy gunfight between the happy couple, the exotic model at the delicatessen, and the old-timer from the motel who was (it would have turned out) secretly watching from the woods and had been aging rent-boy to the guys when they'd shared the rubber house. <br /><br />In the process, they could have blown that freezing shack to smithereens, resolved most of the snags; such as the "whore bitch" ode on the windscreen, the reason why the protagonist had "no friends," as well as explaining his coolness under pressure from bloody tampon, incessant phone calls . . . and that crawl-space chic, the green thumb, and his attraction to the simpler life. Quite the technician with the human body, though. Ex-abortionist? Morgue attendant? A bit of a heartbeat would have been nice.<br /><br />It was fun watching these people move around, I guess, but Eleanora's silly Italian games were suffocatingly stereotypical while the caretaker had been to too many yoga classes: a dick, a mind, and a pick-up truck about summed it up for him. I also wished they could have had a bit more luggage: Eleanora is ready to go after putting some black underwear into her nifty red suitcase and the caretaker just needs a cardboard carton there at the motel.<br /><br />Trifling matters, you may well say. I agree, although the niggling bits just didn't add up right in this rush job. Good owl-wrangling, though, and I really felt cold all the way through. | 0neg
|
I understand wanting to make a movie that is edgy and different. I understand the previous reviewer comments that this is a miss-understood movie. My point is as soon as this movie ended my first comment was: " this is what happens when a rich princess wants to be a movie star and has no talent".....she uses daddy's' money to make a movie she wrote, directs, and pays for.....obviously to close to the movie to realize there was no character development and no directions such as a beginning, middle and ending.....the voyeur part was good and edgy but what was the point? I saw a women go to a house, find some pictures, screw the caretaker, come out side on a very cold night (not believable) to check on noise and runs over her caretaker lover....movie ends......some one educate my ignorant arss?? I really want to know what the point is....what was the directors' vision.....why no development of the dead lover? Why no background on the caretaker? What is the point of the night vision? What is the point of the lipstick on the car? Why a dead caretaker? Why tell us about an escaped mental patient/peeping tom? What's with the urn? Oh and the lamp is that suppose to signify whose' house this is? Territorial? Why? Why would the caretaker feel like it's his house? that aspect was never pursued......as for William Defoe...I rented this movie because he was in it and known for edgy characters.....write back and do tell me what I need to learn....I am just a mom in middle America who loves movies....Chris.... | 0neg
|
This movie was the worst i've ever seen.<br /><br />It doesn't seem to have a plot but the time you realize this is far beyond the beginning of the movie so you have to watch the shut for a long time to recognize the total incompetence of the director, aka the sloth that plays the tampon chick in the movie, and we do not believe the Willem Dafoe in this movie, he's a clone, because the real Dafoe, like we know from "apocalypse now" and "the boon dock saints", would never agreed to such a script.<br /><br />Duh, (Da)foe wrote this bill shut together with his twenty years minus baby. This movie starts with the credits of the two main characters, Dafoe and Colagrande, and then the two script writers, Dafoe and Colagrande, and then the director, Colagrande.<br /><br />Bottomline (the story); Widow meets guy, guy bangs widow, widow smashes windscreen with guy who banged her.<br /><br />Title in Netherlands; The black widow (different title, same bullshit).<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! It's a total waist of time!!! | 0neg
|
I too like Dafoe as an actor but i wasted a few hours of my life actually watching this film, I still cant believe i managed to watch it in its entirety. Was there actually a point to the film?, and the ending, well, Im glad i never paid to see this awful pointless piece of pathetic excuse of a film!<br /><br />Im not sure without hunting the facts out but is Dafoe married or seeing the awful actress in this film in real life, if so was it an attempt to kick start her career?, if so im afraid it must have failed..<br /><br />I post this in the hope i can actually put someone off watching this film, even if 1 person takes heed of my comments and decides they would much rather watch paint drying i will feel i have made some good in the world, if only i had had the same advice... | 0neg
|
The poster who called this "Plotless and pointless" literally took the words I would have used in my subject line. The only thing I'd add is "passionless." For a film made by a real life married couple and featuring lots of graphic sex scenes this movie manages to make what should be a sultry situation into one beyond ice cold. Dafoe and Colagrande look bored during the sex scenes, and the viewer might as well take a Valium and have done with it. Also, please, the women in the audience have seen WAY too many used tampons in their time, and any guy who is turned on by seeing Willem Dafoe pull a bloody tampon out of his wife's vagina really needs to get therapy.<br /><br />I think the key to the film (if there is one) is the restaurant scene where a waiter explains to the perpetually sleepy-eyed Dafoe what a "deconstructed jambalaya" is. (All the ingredients of the dish still separate rather than simmered together.) This movie is a "deconstructed thriller". All the elements are there: spooky, isolated house, dead spouse,creepy violins on the score, weirdo caretaker who comes and goes as he pleases, auto accident deaths and near deaths, characters with a secret past. Basically every thriller cliché you can think of, but NOTHING comes together. Everything just sits there and never meshes into a coherent plot or even an artsy mood piece. At the restaurant, Dafoe passes on the "deconstructed jambalaya". Prospective renters of this mess would do well to leave this deconstructed thriller on the video store shelf. | 0neg
|
Italian-born Eleonora has inherited from her deceased lover Karl, an ultra-modern and isolated house in the middle of the woods. It's winter and she meets the mysterious caretaker Leslie, who eventually ends up not only just looking after the house, but also that of Eleonora, as she tries to adapt to her new surroundings and a growing attraction between the pair.<br /><br />What was I expecting? A thriller indeed, but it wasn't quite so. That's just the advertising on the package for ya! I'm quite perplex about everything. The title, the story and the motivation. So how to classify it? Well, this wooden character drama is more a enigmatically moody romance bound-story of alienation, possession and dependence twisted into a complicatedly passionate relationship of two masked individuals. Co-writer (along with William Dafoe) and director Giada Colagrande's art-house film is just too clinical, distant and calculated with its mysteriously metaphoric story, which it leaves you questioning what does it all really mean
although when its sudden conclusion materialises, you'll thinking why should I actually care. What we go through feels aimless with ponderous exposition of dead air that focuses of insignificant details and images. Sterile dialogues can contributed to many awkward developments, but more so make for an leaden experience, as it never delves deep enough. Like it believes it does. The sexually salty activities filtered in just never convince and are far from erotic. They are kind of a bump in the already sluggish flow. The base of the plot makes for something interesting and fresh, but it's never fulfilling and I thought there'll be more to it then all of this dreary lingering. Colagrande's direction is professionally stylish and suitably gloomy to want she imagines, but everything feels like it's in slow motion and can get caught up admiring the same views. Most of the action stays at the one location
the house. Camera-work is potently taut, but the sullen musical score can get a bit ridiculous when it goes for some dramatically stabbing music cues that served little sense and purpose to the scenes. Giada Colagrande plays it sensually and William Dafoe sleep walks the part. He looks dog tired! While Seymour Cassel, pokes his head in now and then.<br /><br />Just where is it heading, is anyone's guess. Well, that's if you can wait around for it. I think I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, as it's definitely not what I was expecting from this Indie film. | 0neg
|
I watched the DVD (called BLACK WIDOW in the U.S.A.) and felt afterward that it was, indeed, a truly awful movie. But they must have cut quite a bit out of the original film, or I missed a lot. The sex scenes had very little vulgarity and no nudity (not even a breast), but I've read several other comments on IMDb.com mentioning the vulgarity and something about a tampon. I did not see anything like that, just a bad, boring film with unlikable characters and a trite, sophomoric plot. Giada Colagrande is either paralyzed from the mouth up or Botoxed to the gills, and nary an expression touches her face. And her name makes me think of super-sizing a beverage at Taco Bell: "I'll have the Cola Grande!" It was actually kind of fun it was so bad, I got to play like I was in my own Mystery Science Theater 3000, noting things like the fact that Dafoe's skin is too big for his face. It's really like silly putty! | 0neg
|
Jane Russell proved to be a delightful musical-comedy performer in the similarly titled "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes"
but, sadly, this film squanders those skills. There is a budget, and nice Paris photography, but the film just doesn't work. Ms. Russell seems to be playing Marilyn Monroe. That leaves nobody to adequately play Jane Russell. Some of the other players are WAY out of their element.<br /><br />There are several embarrassing scenes; most of all, be warned: there is a musical number where boneheaded African cannibals "cook" the brunettes in a pot, after Alan Young sings in a gorilla suit.<br /><br />This is an interesting, at times embarrassing, waste of resources. <br /><br />*** Gentlemen Marry Brunettes (10/29/55) Richard Sale ~ Jane Russell, Jeanne Crain, Alan Young, Scott Brady | 0neg
|
I would have left the movie halfway through if I hadn't been with people who liked it. The movie is based on real incidents, but it's so over the top it didn't feel real at all. I have some psychological background, hang out with a lot of psychotherapists, and have known seriously crazy people, so it's not that I think people like this don't exist. But in the film, the only characters who seemed consistently human were Augusten's father (Alec Baldwin) and the young Augusten (Jack Kaedin). (Although Evan Rachel Wood was an intriguing diversion - very sexy with a wicked sense of fun). There were a few amusing moments, but the overall tone of the movie was grim, bizarre, and nasty. What a waste of an outstanding cast! As I watched them go through their turns, I just felt like I was watching an acting class. This was brought home during the credits, when a couple of people were shown just sitting there, not acting, not talking. Those few moments were more entertaining than the previous 2 hours. | 0neg
|
to make up a movie-going audience - I'm certainly stunned by the number of positive comments this wretched film has garnered here. I can't credit it, can't help but be suspicious, for that matter, of back alley payoffs to critics who are touting Annette Bening for an Oscar; the hole in the kitchen ceiling might be more appropriately attributed to her scenery chewing. She's a wonderful actress but this is an unfortunately unbalanced performance, lacking that essential quality film actors must master of catching the cadence of the screenplay and maintaining it for the duration of the disjointed madness that is a film shoot.<br /><br />I don't really want to blame Miss Bening or most of the other performers (well, Gwyneth Paltrow has no excuse for her muzzy work), however, because this is a horrendous adaptation, a classic case of mistranslation (I am prepared to assume. I haven't read the book and don't think I will after this). The script launches us into the middle/muddle of unaccountable behaviour and extreme emotional angst spewing from mystifying characters who have developed relationships neither with us nor each other. It quickly becomes a grotesquely excessive tsunami-like assault that sullies characters and audience alike and left me like a survivor shaking my head at the detritus left at the end of each repetitive episode. Shock and awe would describe my reaction to frantic, bi-polar mood swings between ranting and oh-so-quiet sensitivity, the latter telegraphed by one of the most irritating, manipulative, droning soundtracks I've heard - that is, when all this isn't being set to ludicrously incongruous toons - period stuff, ya know, but chosen with an astounding disregard for the tone of the scenes.<br /><br />How this fine cast got mixed up in this I don't know - I can't believe they saw the screenplay before signing. They certainly apply their skills with commitment - I felt so sorry for the wonderful Jill Clayburgh saddled with a cartoon bag lady costume and wig trying vainly to wrench something of significance from sketchy and clichéd dialogue. In contrast, somehow, Alec Baldwin rises above the material to deliver a consistent, nuanced, real performance. Can somebody give this man a lead role of substance, please? And how about Rachel Evan Wood - or Joseph Fiennes? You'd think the industry could make better use of him, and without appearing as hirsute as Elliot Gould in M.A.S.H. <br /><br />My vote? A standup turd, all right, but no link with heaven. | 0neg
|
I am a big movie fan. I like movies of all types. This is arguably the worst movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />I get that it follows the book closely, which raises the point that not everything should be made into a movie. Especially since the authenticity of the experiences in the book have been called into question more than once.<br /><br />These characters are not quirky, they are mentally ill. The things that happen are not funny, they are disturbing; especially considering they are supposed to be true.<br /><br />This movie had the feel of The Royal Tenenbaums, another movie I hated, only Running With Scissors was even more dysfunctional and less funny.<br /><br />I will never get those hours back. I wanted to wash my brain after watching. | 0neg
|
This movie contains no humor for anyone who has lived with a family member who has a mental illness. So many scenes reminded me too graphically of my own life experiences. This movie was the man's version of "Mommy Dearest." It depicts both graphically and accurately the life many children of a mentally ill parent goes through. It also shows how easy it is for a psychiatrist to become corrupt and act like they are God. <br /><br />Someone told me it was funny. No way, I say! It is sick humor at best. <br /><br />The movie is so intense and depressing that my son and I had to leave the room. The best use for this movie is for people who don't understand mental illness or don't believe what we families actually do live through. | 0neg
|
Not sure why this film was advertised as a wild, quirky, laugh filled comedy. There is not much in this movie that will entertain, nor amuse the moviegoer. Annette Bening (whose acting was touted as being Oscar worthy) comes off here as mannered, with her performance seeming routine. Brian Cox's character is confusing and irritating, and the lead playing Augusten Joseph Cross appears to simply not have the personality to carry his role. The best thing about the film is Evan Rachel Wood, but she is not enough to endorse this boring, unsavory film.<br /><br />The film disappeared quickly and it seems with good reason. I found some of the scenes distasteful (the scene with Brian Cox and his just utilized toilet rivals some of the worst scenes in 'You and Me and Everyone We Know' and 'The Squid and the Whale'), some embarrassing, and most of them unsettling. I found the whole experience a waste of time. Don't you waste your time
| 0neg
|
Absolutely the most boring movie I have ever spent my money on.This was a wrong choice for all these great stars to waste their reputations on. Boring! boring! boring! Each character was portrayed in a less than inspirational way. No acting talent shown -just reading a part. Alec can play realistic characters normally, Gwynyth made herself look ugly for an unrewarding part, Annette needs advise on how to pick the movies she chooses to play in as do all these big stars who have left me disappointed at the way they have all allowed their talents to be smothered in a feature that leaves much to be desired in entertainment. "Running with scissors" leads the public to anticipate great acting in a film that suggests experiencing tension and deep emotion. There was not one moment when the cast was able to portray any interpretation of this onto the screen. Maybe it was the director's fault----whatever. | 0neg
|
The film starts to slowly when we got to the cinema we thought it looked quite good but after about 5 mins we were all bored out of our minds and wondering what kind of film we had come to see, i don't like this film and wouldn't recommend it to anyone, the best part of the night was when the alarm and lights came back on because the project broke down because we thought we could all go home. this has to be one of the worst films i have ever seen we were all bored out of or minds and most of the people in the cinema actually RAN out of the doors at the end because it was so rubbish. i am surprised that no one walked out earlier than that. if you go and see it make sure you something to keep you busy, better still Don't go and see it at all. | 0neg
|
I wonder how the actors acted in this movie. Annette Bening was really herself, half in and half out, was she faking or being natural? It didn't make any difference considering that even if she had been walking on the ceiling it would not have changed the pattern of the film. Brian Cox acted really well. I almost thought that he had always acted this way, tricky, dishonest, in a dirty surrounding where nobody really cared about hygiene. As for Gwyneth Paltrow, the question is what she was doing in this film.<br /><br />This film is quite sickening and disgusting. Who would pay to see such a crap? | 0neg
|
As the front cover says "The hamlet of our time, for our time".<br /><br />I had to study this filmed version of Hamlet directly after watching Keneth Branagh's version and it was truly a disappointing experience.<br /><br />This version takes a different approach to several aspects of the play including sexuality; one very VERY homosexual Osric and an interesting interaction between Hamlet and Ophelia. I think for the time (60's) this was a very well done version of Hamlet but cannot compare to Branagh's complete version.<br /><br />just a note... I found the video at my local video store (in Australia) and I'm actually looking for a Keneth Branagh DVD to buy if such a thing even exists. If anyone knows of one please tell me. | 0neg
|
Williamson's accent is tough to wade through. He speaks incredibly quickly, like he is in a rush to get through the lines. During the soliloquies he acts as if he is talking to someone, when he is supposed to be talking to himself. All that and his bald spot just annoyed me. He was just too old for this role. In reading other accounts of Williamson, maybe he got this role because he was mad and the director decided to do a bit of life-imitates-art or forced method acting. When the actors declare Hamlet mad you believe it! Marianne Faithful is a stunning beauty and could botch the role of Ophelia and still get a pass. The set is dark and foreboding but it does look as if shot in a real castle especially the scenes in the tunnels/corridors where the dead king shines as a great light in the sky. | 0neg
|
I had to compare two versions of Hamlet for my Shakespeare class and unfortunately I picked this version. Everything from the acting (the actors deliver most of their lines directly to the camera) to the camera shots (all medium or close up shots...no scenery shots and very little back ground in the shots) were absolutely terrible. I watched this over my spring break and it is very safe to say that I feel that I was gypped out of 114 minutes of my vacation. Not recommended by any stretch of the imagination. | 0neg
|
This film deals with two ex-football players who are Fred Williamson, (Mack Derringer) and Gary Busey, (Lenny) who work as private eyes and meet all kinds of ladies and men with some bad backgrounds. Mack Derringer is approached by his ex-wife Vanity (Jennifer Derringer) who works at having sex talk over the telephone. Jennifer is being threatened by one caller who wants to do horrible things to her and she asks for his help along with several other ladies. Mack & Lenny have more time on their hands and often go to Miami, Fl. golf courses or hang out in a Sports Bar where all kinds of city things go on. There is lots of punches, killings and plenty of double meaning words that bring this film completely down to a big ZERO. Don't waste your time, this film cost me only 50 cents and that was too much. | 0neg
|
one of the worst films i have seen to date. Pathetic action scene and really bad acting also do not help. The only good point is Gary busey's parts but this does not lift the film very much. it lives up to its B film ranking and passes the test with flying colours. A waste of my money although i found entertaining to begin with its gets annoying after a few watches. i do not recommend this film unless you watch it for free or its a gift. ( a gift you can ask for the receipt and send back for a complete refund).<br /><br />Really BAd.<br /><br />1/10. | 0neg
|
i don't know what they were thinking.by they,i mean anybody even remotely connected to this disaster.i've seen so bad movies,i've seen so really bad movies,and then there's this.but i will say one thing.whoever wrote the script has manged to put what could possibly the most inane dialogue over written,onto the screen.there is nothing good about this movie,either from a technical standpoint or any other standpoint.whoever allowed it to be made and then released should have been fired immediately.there are a few fairly well known names in this movie.actually i hesitate to use the word movie.it's more like a collection of random scenes that have no relation to another and make less than 0 sense.anyway,i fail to see why anyone with any dignity would appear in this.i got it really cheap,and i still got ripped of.even if i had gotten this movie for free,i would still have been ripped off.this is an absoluter 0/10 | 0neg
|
I saw this for Gary Busey and Fred Williamson thinking they were buddy cops. They are but Busey is in the opening scene then doesn't show up again until like 40 minutes into the movie. Though every scene he's in is awesome. Especially when he disguises himself as a blind hobo.<br /><br />What's incredible about this movie is the plot. In the movie Fred Williamson is trying to find out who stalking and killing phone sex operators. At one point I think thats its Busey. But it turns out I'm only partly right. Busey is not the killer, but he is calling up and harassing the women over the phone. Why? I don't know. In no way is he connected to the killer, he just does it for kicks I guess. | 0neg
|
For me the only reason for having a look at this remake was to see how bad and funny it could be. There was no doubt about it being funny and bad, because I had seen "Voyna i mir" (1968). Shall we begin? Here we go...<br /><br />Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Pierre Bezukhov - a lean fellow that lacks the depth of the original; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Natasha Rostova - a scarecrow, her image can cause insomnia; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Andrej Bolkonsky - an OK incarnation which, like the lean fellow (cf. above), lacks depth of a Russian soul and "struggle within"; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Napoleon - a rather unimpressive leader; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Prince Bolkonsky - a turd with an English face; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Count Bezukhov - a spineless freak-show...<br /><br />The rest of the characters are not much better.<br /><br />The movements of the actors and the way they look and speak are often atrocious. They behave like modern EU citizens dressed up for a one-day masquerade. It all looks cheap and never comes close to the standards of our Russian men and women of the early 19th century.<br /><br />A good piece of entertainment to scrutinize and make fun of. We had quite a few giggles in our office when remembering this modern product, which had been shown the previous evening on our TV.<br /><br />"User Rating: 8.0/10 (29 votes)" - I guess, many young people have never watched our film ("Voyna i mir" 1968) or have weird sense of "Tarantino-Spielberg" quality. Remember the scene when our hussar is saving his friend, turns around, shoots, and the bridge goes boom? Looks like a CGI explosion.<br /><br />There is neither sense nor craft to make a better version of the novel, which was screened properly in our country once. But I would be happy to watch a Russian remake of "Gone with the Wind". Hey, directors, wake up and get busy with that, instead of spoiling our classics.<br /><br />Now back to common sense. Jokes aside. What I mentioned above is nothing new, though deadly exaggerated.<br /><br />To make foreign actors trying to pass for Russians (while participating in very serious epics and dramas) is a rude mistake and the filmmakers are making this mistake again and again. Of course it results in numerous laughs - especially Clemence Poesy is uncomfortably ridiculous and her dancing and singing makes a Russian viewer think: "This sucks so much that it's funny!").<br /><br />In order to say something new, I'd like to mention the pace of the movie. To my mind, this new version is very patchy. The narration and the scenes are not naturally flowing - they stagger and pop up like in a modern video. Again I have to remember our "Voyna i mir", where the action is so natural and the narration is so easy that you simply sit back and enjoy "going with the flow".<br /><br />I thought that maybe the Borodino battle would be great (to somehow rehabilitate numerous drawbacks) but it has turned out to be no match for the war scenes filmed in 1968.<br /><br />There should be something good in this movie after all. And there is. The actors seem to be trying hard to make it all work. They did not have a chance from the start but they still joined "the losers' team". Plus 1 point for that recklessness. It makes a Russian viewer uncomfortable - some scenes are ironically ridiculous though they are intended to be dramatically powerful and the actors are doing their best. It all evokes pity, and sometimes - fits of laughter.<br /><br />What I still like about this serial is the last part of it. It shows very vividly how everybody gets his or her "salary and taxes". Besides, judging by the movie trailers I thought that the film would have an adult sex scene, which would definitely kill the whole project. But, fortunately, it does not have such rubbish. And that's a big plus.<br /><br />"Voyna i Mir" is no "Harry Potter" and nowadays even we, here in present-day Russia, do not have enough craft to film it properly. Do I have to say that the moral quality of our life has deteriorated immensely? Fortunately, a proper film was screened during our Soviet times. The American version of the 1950s was justified to some extent - ours did not even exist yet. There were extenuating circumstances then.<br /><br />4 out of 10 (1 point is given from the start, 1 point goes for the recklessness, and 2 points for the last part of the serial. Thanks for attention. | 0neg
|
I didn't like this film at all! First of all,I don't know why, but everyone here says, that Clémence Poésy's play is excellent, which in my opinion is absolutely wrong! She is not like Natasha: another appearance, another character... What's worse, she is a very unexperienced actress and that's why she wasn't able to play this role! She disfigured the heroine completely! That was really disgusting to watch her play! To my mind, that would be much better to give this role to a Russian actress, because that would be much easier for her to understand the Russian soul for a Russian person. Unfortunately, Kutuzov looked like a drunk man, who hasn't shaved 2 weeks and defeated a battle in which he lost his eye...( Thank's God, in this film there're some actors, whose play was awesome! I suppose, that Alessio Boni coped with his task very well! I was pleasantly amazed! He is one of the few people who's read the book, which is very important for the play. In addition, I liked plays of our Russian actors, that was really wonderful to watch them)) The only thing I liked in this work was very beautiful views and amazing dresses! My advice is to read the book and to understand a real sense, the aim, with which Leo Tolstoy wrote this masterpiece, and maybe realize the whole idea of the book... 1 from 10 | 0neg
|
It's been nearly 30 years, and I STILL hate everyone involved in this movie. It remains the worst movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />Before seeing this, I never much minded Rivers, one way or the other. After seeing this movie, I have an allergic reaction when I accidentally see her on television.<br /><br />I got dragged to this - against my better judgment - by peer pressure. However, coming out of the theater, those friends swore an oath to never again overrule my choice of movie. Nearly thirty years later, we still carry around mental scars from this movie.<br /><br />On my deathbed, one of my regrets will be the time I wasted hoping that this movie might get better. It never did.<br /><br />If you are ever given a choice, you would prefer putting your own eyes out to sitting though this movie.<br /><br />I registered for IMDb comments just in the hope that perhaps I can warn others against viewing this movie. If I can save just one person from watching this, then my existence on this earth will have been justified. | 0neg
|
Absolutely one of the worst movies of all time.<br /><br />Low production values, terrible story idea, bad script, lackluster acting... and I can't even come up with an adjective suitably descriptive for how poor Joan River's directing is. I know that there's a special place in Hell for the people who financed this film; prolly right below the level reserved for child-raping genocidal maniacs.<br /><br />This movie is a trainwreck.<br /><br />(Terrible) x (infinity) = Rabbit Test.<br /><br />Avoid this at all costs.<br /><br />It's so bad, it isn't even funny how bad it is. | 0neg
|
Leonard Maltin compared this film to a Mel Brooks comedy. He was far too kind to Ms. Rivers, and far too cruel to Mr. Brooks. Not even the raunchiest Mel Brooks films are this tasteless, and at least they're genuinely funny. This picture deserves a place on the hundred-worst list. | 0neg
|
I remember this movie when i was 13 (seems a lot of reviews are saying the same thing AGE 13!) with a group of school buddies. We all wanted to see Billy Crystal in his first movie, and fell for the typical commercial ads telling us this was a great comedy. We suffered through about 45 minutes of it, and all agreed to leave the theater. It was grotesque & tasteless, and a far cry from the ability Billy Crystal had to make us laugh, we were not laughing. I stumbled upon this review by accident, and decided to register just to tell the rest of the world what a rot-gut waste of film this was, now if you rent this, you deserve what you get, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!! | 0neg
|
I cannot say enough bad things about this train wreck. It is one of the few movies I've ever been tempted to walk out of. It was a bad premise to begin with, first pregnant male, but then they tried to make it a spoof. What were they spoofing all those real pregnant males??? This was the worst movie I have ever seen. If it had enough votes it would be on the IMDB bottom 100. If it was possible to give it a zero I would, and I would still feel I had given it too much credit. | 0neg
|
I am quite sure that this was the worst movie ever made. If you can't make a 13 year old boy laugh at silly humor you should give up comedy forever. Unfortunately Joan Rivers chose differently. The movie is full of predictable gags (some of these are racist) and very unfunny jokes. Particularly memorable is the scene where the doctor tells the lead character that the rabbit has died and he is pregnant (as I write this, I cannot believe this was actually a movie scene). The man rushes to a dead rabbit on the doctors desk and tries to give it mouth to mouth. ROTFLMAO! NOT! The punch line that can tell you how bad things are in this movie is "I knew I should have been on top." ha ha ha ha ah ugh ........ | 0neg
|
I really can't believe this movie is not in the IMDB worst 250, it is absolutely terrible. When I originally saw it I remember talking about it in a college class and two other people had also seen it. We were all telling other class members not to see it because it was so horrible. By the time we were done some others wanted to see it just because they could not believe anything was as bad as we were saying it was. Don't be like them, just pass this by. I'm sure everyone involved with this movie would also prefer you never see them in this movie. | 0neg
|
Well to answer one persons's question of "why doesn't anyone remember this film?" it's because really,not that many people saw it in 1978 and it's not been shown much on TV since. (If it's on video that'd be news to me!) Even in the era of sometimes mindless comedies that was the '70s,movie-goers had the smarts to avoid this film. Unless they love Billy Crytal,Paul Lynde or Joan Rivers "that" much! <br /><br />Paul Lynde was funnier on "Bewitched" or "Hollywood Squares" than here. Joan Rivers at this time in her career was getting laughs making cruel jokes about singer Karen Carpenter's lack of weight! Har-har Joan! It also seems like every "somewhat" famous name from the era is in the cast. (Most surprising is Doris Roberts later of "Everybody Loves Raymond".)<br /><br />Anyhow,a somewhat good idea for a storyline,a man getting pregnant instead of the woman goes to waste here. With help from a male friend Crystal gets set up with a hooker to finally lose his virginity but because she was "on top" instead of him,he gets pregnant! (A commentary on women taking positions of power away from men).<br /><br />Crystal's stomach grows,he goes through all the female emotions and related feelings. Unfortunately,he is now a socially misunderstood outcast! He's attacked by a mob who wants him rubbed out (I guess).<br /><br />He's forced to go into seclusion to have his baby...in a barn. Or if you will,a manger (God only knows where it may have exited from! Ewwww!) It turns out (no shock here) to be a girl! <br /><br />Everything else about this movie is worthless and forgettable,the humor is high school level or less.<br /><br />2 stars for a good idea and a few good touching & relevant moments w/ Billy Crystal. Ignore the rest of Rabitt Test,it flunks big time!<br /><br />I can't believe Roddy McDowell signed on either! (END) | 0neg
|
I saw this film when it first came out in 1978, when I was a sophomore in high school. I took a date to see it. I didn't "get any," needless to say, because the film was so bad! Joan Rivers' career never tanked as badly as it deserved after making this awful, unfunny crap. In fact, unfunny isn't a severe enough term: this film is ANTI-FUNNY! You walk out feeling like any laughter that might have occurred was beaten out of you before it could happen. This isn't worth watching out of curiosity, or out of any sense of it being "so-bad-it's-good." Not even the gang at MST3K could've made this worth watching! The fact that Billy Crystal's career survived this early suicide attempt is a miracle. | 0neg
|
It's difficult to precisely put into words the sheer awfulness of this film. An entirely new vocabulary will have to be invented to describe the complete absence of anything even remotely recognizable as 'humor' or even 'entertainment' in "Rabbit Test." So, as a small contribution to this future effort, I'd like to suggest this word: <br /><br />"Hubiriffic" (adj.) A combination of 'hubristic' and 'terrific'; used to describe overly ambitious debacles like the film "Rabbit Test."<br /><br />Joan Rivers and "Hollywood Squares" producer Jay Redack have severely over-reached their meager abilities to amuse in this 82-minute festival of wretchedness. Trying to put together an Airplane! style comedy with a moldy collection of gags, (Note to Joan: German doctors haven't been funny since Vaudeville) disinterred from their graves in the Catskills - that's is bad enough. But compounding this cinematic crime is River's directorial style, which can best be described as 'ugly', and a cast of once-and-future has-beens so eager to please they overplay even the weakest of throwaway gags.<br /><br />Adrift in this Sargasso Sea of sap is a hapless Billy Crystal in his film debut role as the film's hapless protagonist Lionel. Watching Crystal in this pic is much like watching a blind person take a stroll in a minefield; eventually the cringe reflex becomes a semi-permanent condition as cheap joke after cheap joke blows up in his face.<br /><br />I can only speculate about the sort of audience who might actually like Rabbit Test. Cabbages, mollusks and mildly retarded lizards are all likely candidates. But for self-aware, thinking humans - I'd enthusiastically recommend pouring bleach in your eyes before I'd recommend "Rabbit Test." | 0neg
|
Turkish Cinema has a big problem. Directors aren't interested in global cinema. They are local and folkloric, but want to be international. This brings kitsch results such this movie.<br /><br />Film has jokes translated to Spanish from Turkish and they don't have any meaning for non-Turkish audiences. Even for Turkish audiences after 10 years.<br /><br />Players, even Ferhan SENSOY have a worse acting than average. They act like puppets.<br /><br />Movie was shot in Cuba, but nothing includes about Cuba. So Cuba is thought like a banana republic.<br /><br />Waste of money, waste of time. | 0neg
|
This was allocated to the fans as the "winner takes all" match occurred between two separate "companies" (the World Wrestling Federation and the "Alliance": an amalgamation of former WCW and ECW superstars. Because the final match to duduce the superior company was a tag-team match, the wrestlers were confined to tossing opponents from each side of the ring to another; each wrestler concludes that in order to debiliate their opponents and to intensify the match, interfernce is necessary. Each wrestler merely pummels an opponent with punches, executes a special move, and tags in a partner. The storyline had previously been tarnished by the subterfuge of Vince that a member of the Allance would be fradulent and join the WWF. It was obvious, with that statement, that the WWF would prevail. Overall: very innovative storyline but poor execution, which is not the scarcity of the wrestlers because the match format is tag-team. The remaining matches are just revolting:<br /><br />Edge versus Test: potent "big boot" by Test, but this did not display the true talents of both stars<br /><br />Al Snow Versus Christian: good match but superflous to the pay-per-view<br /><br />Taji versus William Regal: the worst match of the night<br /><br />Immunity Battle Royal: This was an outstandingly fun match to watch, but because the main stars of both companies were involved in the main event, only a wrestler who characteristically appears on "Heat" and is probably a WCW light-heavyweight reject (i.e. the Hurricane who is merely hired as an entertainer)<br /><br />Hardy Boyz Versus Dudley Boyz: The best match of the night: Jeff Hardy executed a "Swanton Bomb" from the summit of a cage and through a wooden table and Matt was wedged into the cage, which appeared to be extremely painful.<br /><br />Because Stone Cold was the WWF champion, Rob Van Dam was the Hardcore Champion, and Kurt Angle was a "mole" in the alliance, all fundamental stars in the main event on the faction of "the Alliance" were granted work after the match's outcome, except for Booker T., who recently attacked a wrestler on "Raw" and will inevitably be given work. Shane McMahon will return to television somehow, and everyone desired to witness the downfall and demise of "the Alliance" to see Stone Cold out of work. The WWF has done much better. A match in which all tiltes were brought to one faction would have been better, and what ever became of Casket and Iron Man matches? | 0neg
|
WWF Survivor Series 2001<br /><br />This was among the worst events of 2001. Perhaps its biggest flaw was the fact that it didn't follow suit to most of the previous Survivor Series'. There was only ONE survivor series match. And that Survivor Series match went on for 45 minutes. What's more, anyone with a working brain would know that it would end with The Rock versus Austin and The Rock prevailing for his team. And don't get me started on the preview before the event. No matter who won it was obvious that no one was going to f***ing die. There was no need for all of that pointless hype. Whatever the storyline, it was just a wrestling event.<br /><br />And as for the rest of the matches: the first match was Christian defending his European title against Al Snow. It was a good fast paced match and its good to see a heel winning a match fairly. William Regal versus Tajiri was boring and we've seen it 2 or 3 times before. Edge versus Test was good but nothing great. The tag titles steel cage match was the best match of the evening. The battle Royal went on for 10 minutes and no one really cared who'd win in the first place. The Women's title match wasn't great. No, not in the slightest. The main event must have been the most hypocritical match in history. The Alliance lost but guess what, after 5 months every single Alliance superstar returned. The match itself was poor. The Rock eliminated 3 of them and Jericho eliminated 2. The Rock was too caught up with his acting to be there when the invasion began. Jericho was the one that jeopardised the whole match. If I wanted any 2 to be eliminated in the early going it would be them. Everyone knew that Kane, Big Show and Undertaker were just fall guys. 7 matches isn't enough for a Survivor Series. If there's ever a Survivor Series as bad as this again I'll | 0neg
|
T. Rama Rao made some extremely beautiful films in the 1980s, but he seems to be a filmmaker who cannot mature with the changing times, styles and fashions. He's like stuck with the same old-fashioned film-making style.<br /><br />Actors are not bad, not good either. Anil Kapoor generally acts convincingly his two roles of a father and his son, but the flawed script often makes him look funny and pathetic. Rekha is good, but then - she's always good, and here she's nothing more than such. She makes the best of what she is given, but she always does that. In conclusion, nothing great at all. Raveena is OK, which means ordinary, not bad, not good, nothing.<br /><br />This film is melodramatic, occasionally stupid. Maybe it's a delayed film? Well, even then it still would be below standard. The script is terrible, the film is overdone, and the story goes nowhere. It feels like a film made in the early 1990s, but the script makes it look even older, the style is like from the 1950s.<br /><br />Don't recommend, unless you're a big fan one of the starring actors. | 0neg
|
The film released at the start of 2000 alongwith MELA both disasters So sad to start a millennium with such nonsense<br /><br />The film seems to suit 70's but looks like an unintentional comedy for 2000<br /><br />Anywayz some classic gems from the film: Paresh Rawal I don't understand to laugh at his role or cry Reason: He goes searching his mother in the village worst part is when he realises a secret of Anil he keeps the secret in his stomach which becomes big and makes him look pregnant I remember in my childhood my teacher told me the same joke Urrf!!!! as a child i laughed at it that time but here?<br /><br />The whole film is a joke can't explain We have Anil in a dual role(One older and younger) and Rekha playing the older's wife and Raveena the youngers We also have reject Harish while Shakti playing the son of Aruna Irani who both fight on who has the worst wig<br /><br />Direction is outdated Music is bad<br /><br />Anil tries hard looks too old in the younger role and too young in the older role yet good effort Rekha is adequate, Raveena too is okay Harish is bad Shakti Kapoor is terrible Aruna Irani is as usual Rajnikant is okay in a cameo | 0neg
|
I just saw this movie on Flix after timer-taping it. I grew up watching F Troop and had a major hard for Wrangler Jane so I was shocked, literally shocked, to find out after seeing this film that the degenerate homicidal nurse was Melody Patterson, who looks pretty good but also looks completely different and is unfortunately poorly photographed. I would never have guessed it was her in a million years. What the hell is she doing in a picture like this? I agree with the guys here that the movie lacks what it's pushing. No sex, no gore, no tease. It's also a remake of the Atomic Brain aka Monstrosity (1964 or thereabouts). Most of the action is tedious; the main character spends enormous amounts of time running around the crazed doctor's house and basement, and the neighborhood in general, or being roughed up by the cop, all of it boring and time-filling. Now if the Italians would have made this, half the film would have been the Slingblade/Uncle Ernest/Jack Elam henchman fondling the unconscious nude girls. But you only get that for 20 seconds. | 0neg
|
THE IMMORTALIZER was, uh, interesting. It certainly didn't kill me during its hour and a half duration, but it didn't impress me much either. A group of kids are abducted in an alley by musclehead mutants (in a scene featuring cinema's least convincing head crushing sound effect) and taken to a fancy house in the suburbs. Here Dr. Divine and his team are performing brain transplants for his rich old patients so they can have young bodies again. Hey, this was quietly remade with a big budget a few years later as FREEJACK! Who knew that when you transplant an old person's brain into a different body that their new voice will sound exactly like their old voice? With all this talk of pineal glands and the use of a glowing green serum, you can almost see visions of FROM BEYOND and RE-ANIMATOR dancing in the producers' heads. But the production literally doesn't have the guts to pull it off. I've never understood why, when someone is making a low budget horror film, that they don't pack it to the edge of the frame with gore. The acting is uniformly terrible, with the only good performance coming from Clarke Lindsley as the assistant Dr. Price. He has a nice evil laugh. The only other thing of note about THE IMMORTALIZER is that it features lots of old people doing their own stunts. Seriously, most of the cast takes some serious bumps for old folks. | 0neg
|
Bradford Dillman plays a scientist who wakes up one morning in the middle of a bloody crime scene; having partial amnesia (or "global amnesia", which one character claims to define as elective loss of memory), the scientist finds a private detective in the phone book in the hopes of piecing his life back together. Abhorrent concoction very loosely based on Walter Ericson's book "Fallen Angel" (filmed in 1965 as "Mirage" with Gregory Peck). It was probably too racy for television--what with drugs and hippies added to the mix--that NBC initially refused to air it, which is how this low-budgeter wound up in theaters. Director James Goldstone gets freaky with the hyperkinetic visuals and camera-tricks, while editor Edward A. Biery goes wild with the zig-zag cuts. Unfortunately, their admittedly-colorful gimmicks cannot cover up the weaknesses of this updated plot, and the acting is woefully overripe. Dillman, under pressure to recall the events of the night in question, goes through an Actor's Seminar of tics, stammers, nose-wipes, and crazy half-laughs while spitting out dialogue like, "Dream...a dream...drugs...yeah, drugs...that SOUND...bells...help!" As a villainous fellow scientist with a Cheshire Cat smile, Pat Hingle nearly upstages Dillman in the Grand Thespian department by continually addressing everyone in baby-talk, strutting about like a middle-aged peacock and twisting his mouth around in agony. Hope Lange's scientist/love-interest is given the short shrift, but not before she screams at indifferent-lover Dillman: "What do I have to do, talk Ape Man? Me want You!" This is one frantic "Jigsaw"! *1/2 from **** | 0neg
|
I doubt Jigsaw was hip even at the time, the whole LSD theme married to a murder mystery being a patently obvious attempt to grab a young audience of the era without in the least truly showing any understanding of the sixties counterculture. The dated aspect aside, Jigsaw suffers from many problems, including overwrought acting, silly and stilted dialogue, LSD flashbacks that go on interminably long even after the point has been hammered home in the first 60 seconds, a failure to create any true suspense even though the actual plot is, on paper, a great vehicle to do just that, and an ending that is so trite and predictable (not to mention reminiscent of a lot of bad television shows) that the climax is actually an anti-climax. If it was a better movie, we might be able to suspend disbelief on a few things where it would help enjoyment, but the weaknesses are so glaring they only serve to highlight the improbabilities viewers might otherwise overlook. I saw Jigsaw on television and it is definitely late night TV fare meant to fill airspace and pass the time to kill somebody's insomnia rather than anything anybody ought to actively seek out. At very best, a three out of 10. | 0neg
|
Nell Shipman attempted a plot to lead up to a chase finale in 'Back to God's Country' of the previous year, and she failed miserably. This time, she does better, although it seems pointless. 'Something New' hardly has a plot lying outside of the chase. There's a brief premise, which sets up the hero (co-author and Shipman's boyfriend) to have to save the girl (played by Shipman), then it's nothing but an exciting, implausible chase from there. Of course, it plays out like an hour-long advertisement for a Maxwell Sedan, but the entire movie is congruously ridiculous. It doesn't seem that she learned much from the last-minute rescue films of D.W. Griffith or its parodies by Mack Sennett and other comedians, which she's imitating.<br /><br />One point of interest is that Shipman writes and directs herself into the film as the writer of the film's story, which has as its protagonist a writer (Shipman again), although she doesn't do much else clever or humorous with it, even though she attempts to. Again, others had pioneered the writer's joke in the intertitles, like Anita Loos with 'Wild and Woolly' or Frances Marion with 'A Girl's Folly' (both 1917). At least, Shipman gives the impression that she doesn't take herself or the film seriously--and neither do I. 'Something New,' despite its claim, is hackneyed. | 0neg
|
Being a fan of silent films, I looked forward to seeing this picture for the first time. I was pretty disappointed. <br /><br />As has been mentioned, the film seems to be one long, long, commercial for the Maxwell automobile. <br /><br />Perhaps if the chase scene was about half the length that it is, I may have enjoyed the film more. But it got old very fast. And while I recognize that reality is stretched many times in films, without lessening a viewer's enjoyment, what was with the Mexican bandits? I mean, they are chasing a car through the mountains, a car that most of the time is moving at about one mile per hour, yet they can't catch up to it? | 0neg
|
Nell Shipman must have been paid a hefty sum of money to promote the Maxwell automobile's off-road capabilities. The plot of the movie is pretty simple, Nell plays a writer who has a bad case of writer's block, and needs inspiration, so she goes to visit Mexico to absorb the atmosphere. There she meets the hero (Bert Van Tuyle), a cowboy who chooses to drive a car rather than ride a horse. While Nell is visiting with her father's partner at his mining camp, a gang of local bandits kidnap her and bring her to their camp deep in the wilderness. The hero needs to get to her quickly, so he decides to drive there in his car. This is where the film takes a weird twist. Bert proceeds to drive over every terrain imaginable, huge rocks, small streams, heavy brush, scraggly tree stumps, steep inclines, etc etc, for the greater part of the film we get to see this car struggling to crawl over obstacles. Now mind you, this isn't a modern-day ATV, it's a 1920 Maxwell automobile, so it looks very out-of-place as an off-road vehicle. And it clearly has limitations for some of the terrain it encounters, we get to see it stuck more than once in this film. But the filmmakers made an effort to show it beating the odds and eventually passing all the obstacles. Once the hero gets to the hidden camp and rescues the girl, he jumps in the car with her and drives off with the bandits in hot pursuit (on horseback), and at this point it became hysterically funny to me. Watching this car slowly rolling over huge rocks, getting stuck in gravel and mountain brush, going forward and back to get momentum enough to pass over fallen tree limbs, the bandits should have had ample time to catch up. But they never do, even though we are to believe this wilderness chase goes on throughout the night. And in a silly climax, the car climbs a mountainside, and helps Nell and the hero push a huge boulder down the side to crush the pursuing bandits.<br /><br />After seeing this film you would think the army should invest in 1920 Maxwell automobiles because they clearly have better off-road capabilities than Hummers and Bradley tanks combined. Watch this film just for laughs, it's worth it just to see Nell cuddling up to the car grill and saying "You did your best, brave little car" | 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.