text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
I enjoy quality crapness, and this ranks up there with some of the finest. the cg is out of this world, or at least pre-dates our world, and the insanity of a 6 foot bloke in a rat outfit chasing after people is laughably bad. I quite enjoyed some of this, but the acting is so goddamn awful, and even the obligatory nude scene doesn't really have any baps out in it. just a complete waste of time if ever i saw one. I don't know who wasted more time, me watching this, or the poor saps who got dragged into making it in the faint hope that this will launch their acting careers. I can assure you, it wont. However, on a brighter note, I have managed to successfully do the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon from this movie, so I think it was almost worthwhile watching the 91 minutes of it. | 0neg
|
Yes, this is one of THOSE movies, so terrible, so insipid, so trite, that you will not be able to stop laughing. I have watched comedies, good comedies, and laughed less than my wife and I laughed at this movie. The other comments give the idea well enough. The characters are so unpleasant you cheer the rats on, the effects are so poorly done you wonder whose elementary school art class was in charge, the acting-- oh the acting-- talk about tired dialogue and embarrassing pauses.<br /><br />But the rat, yes, the big rat. Why we didn't get to see the rat until the end rather surprised me. Often the 'big one' isn't shown until the end because the budget is limited and good effects chew up so much money. I surmise, however, that in this case the big rat was hidden until the end because the filmmakers were ashamed that the best they had was a guy running around dressed up like a woodchuck with third-world dentistry.<br /><br />The most sublime part of the whole movie is the elevator scene. After figuring out that the rats couldn't stand loud noise (migraines from the bad acting?), the main dude rigs up a fire alarm to send the rats into a frenzy. If you've ever wanting to see a pair of rats waltz while blood squirts out of their heads like a geyser, this film is for you. Really, you need to rent it and see for yourself.<br /><br />But not for more than 99¢, OK? | 0neg
|
well after watching this i can say that it ain't the worst movie ever made,, yes folks there is worse than this,, there are some good points to the movie,, you get to watch drunken teenagers, have horrible deaths,, and cute looking rats eating some science experiment, and getting grotesquely huge,, the drunk janitor,, the cranky doctor,, and yes a girl in thong underwear that has absolutely no shame,, dumb jocks,, i could'nt personally wait for the rat to eat these drunken fools,, i was rooting for the rat the e ntire time,, it had a good premise,, the first part of the movie,, was interesting though with the scientific explantation about the rats,, and the little back story,, but i think that it ruined when the dumb drunken horny teenagers come into play,, the rat in my opinion, the one that get's lost,, her name is Brenda, was so fake,, must have been a cGi rat,, looked like a guy dressed up in a beaver suit,, this was pretty schlocky, lame,, but not totally horribble,, | 0neg
|
This film is easily one of the worst ones I have ever seen. And I don't mean that in a good way. We wanted to see a crappy horror/thriller, so we picked the one that seemed to be the lousiest in the store. For once, the film was everything we'd expected. And more! (or should I say less?)<br /><br />The actors look like they are reading their lines from posters behind the camera. The so-called special effects are created by putting red see-through plastic in front of the camera to give the impression that we are seeing through the eyes of the killer rats. And the script? Don't even get me started on the script... And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it turns out that the first part of the film was Oscar-material compared to the ending.<br /><br />Take it from me, this film is hilarious if you're into crappy horror-films, but if you want a GOOD film, keep on looking. This is not for you. | 0neg
|
Altered Species starts one Friday night in Los Angeles where Dr. Irwin (Guy Vieg) & his laboratory assistant Walter (Allen Lee Haff) are burning the midnight oil as they continue to try & perfect a revolutionary new drug called 'Rejenacyn'. As Walter tips the latest failed attempt down the sink the pipes leak the florescent green liquid into the basement where escaped lab rats begin to drink it... Five of Walter's friends, Alicia (Leah Rown in a very fetching outfit including some cool boots that she gets to stomp on a rat with), Gary (Richard Peterson), Burke (Derek Hofman), Frank (David Bradley) & Chelsea (Alexandra Townsend) decide that he has been working too hard & needs to get out so they plan to pick him up & party the night away. Back at the lab & the cleaner Douglas (Robert Broughton) has been attacked & killed by the now homicidal rats in the basement as Walter injects the latest batch of serum in a lab rat which breaks out of it's cage as it grows at an amazing rate. Walter's friends turn up but he can't leave while the rat is still missing so everyone helps him look for it. All six become potential rat food...<br /><br />Also known as Rodentz Altered Species was co-edited & directed by Miles Feldman & has very little to recommend it. The script by producer Serge Rodnunsky is poor & coupled together with the general shoddiness of the production as a whole Altered Species really is lame. For a start the character's are dumb, annoying & clichéd. Then there's the unoriginal plot with the mad scientist, the monster he has created, the isolated location, the stranded human cast & the obligatory final showdown between hero & monster. It's all here somewhere. Altered Species moves along at a fair pace which is just about the best thing I can say about it & thankfully doesn't last that long. It's basically your average run-of-the-mill killer mutant rat film & not a particularly good one at that either.<br /><br />Director Feldman films like a TV film & the whole thing is throughly bland & forgettable while some of the special effects & attack scenes leave a lot to be desired. For a start the CGI rats are awful, the attack sequences feature hand-held jerky camera movement & really quick edits to try & hide the fact that all the rats are just passively sitting there. At various points in Altered Species the rat cages need to shake because of the rats movement but you can clearly see all the rats just sitting there as someone shakes the cages off screen. The giant rat monster at the end looks pretty poor as it's just a guy in a dodgy suit. There are no scares, no tension or atmosphere & since when did basements contain bright neon lighting? There are one or two nice bits of gore here, someone has a nice big messy hole where their face used to be, there's a severed arm & decapitation, lots of rat bites, someone having their eyeball yanked out & a dead mutilated cat.<br /><br />Technically Altered Species is sub standard throughout. It takes place within the confines of one building, has cheap looking CGI effects & low production values. The acting isn't up to much but it isn't too bad & a special mention to Leah Rowan as Alicia as she's a bit of a babe & makes Altered Species just that little bit nicer & easier to watch...<br /><br />Altered Species isn't a particularly good film, in fact it's a pretty bad one but I suppose you could do worse. Not great but it might be worth a watch if your not too demanding & have nothing else to do. | 0neg
|
What a terrible film.<br /><br />It starts well, with the title sequence, but that's about as good as it gets.<br /><br />The movie is something about rats turning into monsters and going on a killing spree. The acting isn't so much poor, but the script is pointless and the film isn't even scary despite the atmospheric music.<br /><br />It really is amazing that some group cobbled together this bag of rubbish and thought it would make a good film.<br /><br />It isn't a good film. It's trash, and I urge you not to waste a minute of your life on it! One out of ten. | 0neg
|
Spoiler below, but read on or you'll never know the horrible fate that awaits all planing to rent "Rodentz".<br /><br />On a moonlit night, in a remote research laboratory, a major medical breakthrough is about to have deadly results. A chemical compound that was created to "hunt and destroy" deadly cancer cells has leaked from the hazardous waste disposal system into the building's basement. Now, the rodents involved in the laboratory experiment upstairs are not the only rats in the facility that will become the altered species. Professor Schultz, a leading bio-researcher, has just determined that the addition of a new enzyme now enables his "hunt and destroy" formulation to regenerate for the length of time necessary to neutralize deadly cancer tumors. When three varying degrees of the new mixture are administered to three different rats and the rest poured down the faulty "Waste Hazard" sink, shocking side-effects result in a night of terror.....right.....<br /><br />Seriously, this is probably the worst film I've seen this year. Everything about it screams "Low-budget!", from the horrendous acting to the special effects which are some of the worst I've ever seen. The characters are clichéd morons and act in stupid, predictable ways: walking down dark hallways alone, looking for a cat, tripping and falling so the "rats" can catch up with them, boarding themselves up in a small room, etc. <br /><br />While some films are cheaply made, this film really takes the cake. Every possible corner is cut, everything from reusing earlier shots, filming the "Lab" hallways from different angles to make it look bigger (That reminds me--why were only TWO guys working in this freakin' massive building?!?!?!?), to music and special effects that could be done on a children's workshop PC.<br /><br />That brings me to the worst aspect of this steaming pile of dung--the special effects. Just horrendous. The computer generated rats look so fake and stand out in every scene so even the dumbest of film buffs could see they are computer generated. And that giant rat suit--OH MY GOD!!!!!!!! seriously, are we supposed to believe that freaking beany baby is a monster? Just pitiful........On the better side, some of the gore looks pretty cool, especially considering the budget. <br /><br />The actors all suck. no one involved with the production cared or knew what they were doing. I've wasted enough time with review, just take my advice, it's garbage. 1/10.<br /><br />About the DVD: The transfer sucks, the audio is passable and there's a commentary track on the disk by the director and two of his friends, who say they had absolutely nothing to do with making the film but were there to ask questions and make comments. All three of these sub-human primordial slime are so incredibly stupid that they should be institutionalized before they can harm themselves or others. I don't want to waste any more of you kind reader's time or mine, for I am starting to remember more than I want to about this film..... DVD rating: 1/10. | 0neg
|
Well then. I just watched an crap-load of movies--all with varying degrees of quality. I wasn't too sure about which one I wanted to review first. Then it hit me like a sack-a-rats: Rodentz. Warn people about Rodentz. This monstrosity stars nobody and is painfully dull to sit through. And it's about mutant rats killing people. Yeah... real freaking' original. "Food of the Gods," or "Willard" anyone? Those were better than this, and that doesn't say much...<br /><br />**POSSIBLE SPOILER**Okay here's the story: Inna laboratory the scientist and his plucky assistant are experimenting on rats and their laboratory is in a crappy neighborhood and crappy building and the plucky assistant's moronic friends show up drunk and everyone becomes food for the crazed rats and just about everybody dies and, oh yeah, there's one giant rat that looks crappy, but it gets killed, the end. There, all in once sentence! Spoiler, you say? Ppfff!! I beg to differ! The second we all realize that there's a giant rat, we all know it's gonna die eventually!!**END SPOILER**<br /><br />Here's the breakdown:<br /><br />The Good: <br /><br />--Well, I watched it for free, but for everyone else... hmmm, no. There's nothing good here. <br /><br />Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help: <br /><br />--Um... well. the gore was decent. --Very average cinematography. <br /><br />--CG rats not as bad as they could've been in some shots...<br /><br />The Bad: <br /><br />--...and in other shots, the CG rats were pathetically cheap-looking. Look, if your film has a low budget, maybe you shouldn't rely on CG. Lesson to take to heart. <br /><br />--The acting is extremely poor.<br /><br />--The characters are beyond uninteresting--we have a mish-mash of clichés and none of them are even done that well. <br /><br />--Booooooooooooring.<br /><br />--Been done before--plenty of times. <br /><br />--Stupid story, just stupid.<br /><br />--Giant rat looks like fat man in poorly conceived bear costume--that was kind of funny--but not funny enough to give this film any worth.<br /><br />--Retarded, unrealistic, and boring dialog. <br /><br />--All the college student rat chow people are drinking Tequila from huge plastic milk jugs--and yet they don't appear to be drunk for anything longer than a few seconds. Way to stick with continuity, guys.<br /><br />The Ugly: <br /><br />--This film is bad. Simply terrible. Worse than you might imagine. It's not even laughably bad like, for instance, "Scarecrow" (2002) or "House of the Dead." Now those movies are crap you can enjoy. Even if they do make you stupider.<br /><br />Memorable Scene: <br /><br />--The lame action-movie ending, complete with uninjured heroes and explosion. Because it didn't feel at all like the rest of this monstrosity--but still sucked.<br /><br />Acting: 2/10 Story: 1/10 Atmosphere: 2/10 Cinematography: 4/10 Character Development: 0/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 4/10 Nudity/Sexuality: 1/10 (I was tending to my son occasionally during the film, so I may have missed it, but was supposedly in there) Violence/Gore: 4/10 Dialogue: 2/10 Music: 1/10 (average for the time) Writing: 1/10 Direction: 2/10<br /><br />Cheesiness: 7/10 Crappiness: 9/10<br /><br />Overall: 1/10<br /><br />Watch it only if you love rat and vermin-based horror films. Wait... Check that. Don't watch it. It's crap.<br /><br />(www.ResidentHazard.com) | 0neg
|
Winter Kills is a terrible, incoherent and very disappointing conspiracy comedy-thriller from little-known director William Richert. While watching the film, I honestly felt as if I was the emperor in the classic fable The Emperor's New Clothes. The film made me feel like a fool because I couldn't make head nor tail of the serpentine plot and the nonsensical characters. But I felt kind of embarrassed to admit to myself that the film was tying my brain up in knots. So I stuck with it to the end, hoping that the whole tangled mess would untangle itself. Then I realised.... the film is SUPPOSED to be serpentine, nonsensical and illogical, because that's the whole point. This is a satirical look at conspiracy theories and theorists, with the knotting-up of the plot used as a metaphor for the knotting-up of truths, half-truths and lies that define any conspiracy. Even when I got that the joke was on me, I still felt Winter Kills to be a pretty awful movie.<br /><br />Young Nick Kegan (Jeff Bridges) is the younger brother of a former United States President who was assassinated in Philadelphia. Nick is present when a dying man claims that he shot the President and gives detailed information about where he hid the gun. Nick follows the clues, but every step of the way the people helping him seem to die in mysterious circumstances. Also, his father Pa Kegan (John Huston), a vulgar and disgustingly wealthy businessman, keeps interfering with Nick's investigation. The deeper he delves into the assassination, the more Nick realises that he is descending into a web of complex lies and red herrings, where nothing is as it seems and no-one can be trusted.<br /><br />The film is an utter nightmare to follow, and in many ways is not worth trying to follow for the afore-mentioned reason that it deliberately tangles itself up. The cast is packed with extraordinary talent but most of them are wasted. Toshiro Mifune has one of the briefest and most pointless cameo roles in cinematic history; Elizabeth Taylor appears uncredited and has not a single line of dialogue; Richard Boone is given what seems to be an interesting role but his character goes nowhere. John Huston has the best role as the powerful patriarch and provides us with the film's few enjoyable moments with his acerbic delivery. Anthony Perkins also gets a creepy role and handles it well, though his screen time is far too short to do complete justice to the character. Some nudity and sex scenes are tossed in for no real reason and, while they're quite graphic and might appeal to voyeurs, they really belong in another film. The film's semi-comic climax is farcical and disappointing, yet paradoxically memorable in its weird little way. There's obviously a cult audience out there somewhere for Winter Kills.... but I won't be counting myself among its number. | 0neg
|
With an absolutely amazing cast and crew, this might have been a classic. Instead it is a repetitive paraphrasing of all the conspiracy theories extant in 1979 about the JFK assassination grafted, rather pointlessly, on to a vaguely incoherent plot about the murder of fictitious president Kegan in 1960. Many superb character actors are wasted as they are either not given enough to do - Sterling Hayden or Eli Wallach, for instance, or they are asked to go rather luridly over the top - John Huston. Jeff Bridges and Anthony Perkins do manage to acquit themselves very well, in their very different ways, though.<br /><br />The photography is gorgeous, but does not justify an hour and a half of your life, or the price of the DVD purchase. | 0neg
|
i can't say i liked this movie very much.it has some amusing moments,but it doesn't seem able to make up its mind whether it is a comedy or a drama.it doesn't really work as either.it's too light in tone to be a drama,and the amusing moments are few and far between.it also doesn't make a lot of sense.things seem to happen for no reason.and it's also extremely convoluted.i feel like they just made things up as they were going.if they had just taken a bit of time to explain things,this might have been a better movie.i would say the ending was anti climatic, but that would mean the rest of the movie had actually been building up to something,which it didn't.it just sorts ends,and that's that.i didn't find it boring,really,but like i said,there there just isn't any point.i'll give Winter Kills a reluctant and weak 3/10 | 0neg
|
From the pen of Richard Condon (The Manchurian Candidate 1962) comes this muddled tale of political intrigue and assassination. The story, told in almost comic book fashion is difficult to swallow. All-star cast considered, this poor effort is not entirely the fault of the cast and crew: the novel was replete with the same short-comings. It seems as though at times the story is actually mocking the more sincere effort put forth in "Manchurian Candidate." A disappointment on all counts. | 0neg
|
Ah WINTER KILLS , based on the novel by Richard Condon which deals with a conspiracy that killed the president of the United States 20 years ago . I knew Condon also wrote THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE which dealt with a similar theme and was looking forward to seeing an intelligent thriller<br /><br />WINTER KILLS left me cold . It's not a thriller - It's a piece of worthless crap , possibly the worst movie I've seen this month and boy have I seen a lot of bad movies in June . The problem lies in both the direction and the script and seeing as William Richert was responsible for both then he should be blamed entirely for this unfunny farce <br /><br />There's two things wrong with this movie . First off is the way everything is presented in a totally over the top manner . It's not as OTT as say something like that James Bond movie with David Niven and Peter Sellers but everything has a farcial edge to it with actors completely mugging their performances . This might have been justified if there was entertainment value to the movie but there's none . As a satire it's very silly , so silly that it becomes almost unwatchable . Secondly the scenes seem to have been cut so much that they're rendered senseless . Take for example a scene where the hero is confronting a loopy militia leader called Dawson . Dawson tells the hero he has 30 seconds start then it cuts to the hero being on board a plane . The scenes begin and end with no rhyme nor reason<br /><br />A dire movie that's an ordeal to sit through | 0neg
|
I watched the pilot and noticed more than a few similarities between 3 lbs and House, M.D.. Tucci's character is brilliant but socially inept out of choice, similar to Laurie's character House, but without the acerbic wit that Laurie brings to House. Meanwhile, Tucci's 'straight guy', the emphatic doctor Seger, is not developed into a more interesting character, like the fallible 'straight guys' Cuddy and Wilson. Indira Varma's character Adrienne Holland is too similar to Jennifer Morrison's doctor Cameron to be a co-incidence.<br /><br />Someone at CBS obviously noticed the success of House, M.D. and told his staff to get him (her) a similar show, hoping that mimicry would prove successful. However, copying a show like House demands the same high level balance of wit and suspense and Tucci and company are just not up to the challenge.<br /><br />I didn't know the show was canceled until I read the comments on IMDb, but it doesn't come as a surprise to me. | 0neg
|
3lbs is obviously just a self indulgent programme for Stanley Tucci to be a producer/moody deep doctor. Unlike House he has absolutely no personality and unlike Grey's Anatomy the brain surgery cases are't even interesting. This programme is supposed to be set in a leading centre for Neurlogical cases - yet there's nothing interesting or exciting going on! Not even the so called pathetic 'feud' between him and a rival adds anything to the show and neither do those hallucinations. In the pilot there was a brief glimpse into the leads's social life as a father - snooze! boring and pointless.<br /><br />This show is pants,there's a glut of medical dramas around at the moment and this does nothing to make it stand out as special. | 0neg
|
I can appreciate what Barney is trying to achieve, but after sitting through this last night at a college movie house, I couldn't help but think...when is this gonna end? A very long and ponderous two hours and fifteen minutes. I had only seen a part of Cremaster 3 on DVD and thought I knew what to expect. That said, experimental films such as this are better digested in small increments. There are a couple of beautiful/horrible images...including the title sequence (no kidding), but if you go into this expecting any kind of plot or meaning, then you are in for a long, snooze-inducing ride. I managed to stay awake for the whole thing (if that's a compliment) but more often than not, I was waiting for some kind of meaning or narrative...big mistake. Among the collection of images are a very ornate gift-wrapping ceremony, the creation of a disgusting dish of what appears to be petroleum jelly slabs formed with a cookie cutter and sprinkled with shrimp (this is served to the crew of the ship which is shown throughout the film), a large blubber cheesecake with a large tentacle turd placed in the center of it, and the mutual evisceration of Bjork and director Matthew Barney which eventually culminates in some bizarre kind of communion, followed by their transformation into whale-like creatures. The soundtrack is at times beautiful and annoying...sometimes even maddening. At one time, there is a song being sung by Bjork to go along with the ephemeral rituals being played before us, and at other times there is just a constant droning of a high-pitched instrument, which we see a mysterious woman playing at the beginning and end of the movie. If this sounds like it doesn't make sense, that is because is DOESN'T! If this sounds like your cup of tea, then you will absolutely LOVE it! If this sounds like something that you probably won't like, then stay far away from it, because you will most likely walk out of the theater during the halfway mark like several people at the screening I attended. This is the very definition of an art film. You get from it what you take from it. But otherwise, there really isn't much there, other than a few oddities and constant construction and deconstruction rituals. I'm glad that there is a place for films such as this, but I can't say I would want to sit through it again. However, I can't say I wouldn't want to see one of Barney Cremaster films from start to finish and compare it with this. I think, perhaps now that I know what to expect I might enjoy something like this more. To give you an idea of what kind of comprehension factor this film has, I probably would've liked it better if I had gotten stoned. Then again, it could've felt twice as long as it was, and then it would've REALLY gotten ponderous. Definitely not for everyone. | 0neg
|
This film is massively boring and pretentious. There is only one good moment when a sailor shaves Mr Barney's(think the purple dinosaur-less pretense) eyebrow. The music is relentlessly cloying-it is sad that Bjork, someone with so much inner beauty, has been brought down to pretentious falsity in her art. The pomp of the tea service makes a beautiful ritual seem vapid. the mythology and culture are not respected in this film they are lifted. Not just from Japanese culture but from another filmmaker...(stay tuned) In a perfect "art imitates life" moment-the crew of the ship finds a giant piece of sh*t. Which is what the audience found in the theatre. There are some set pieces which are very composed and arty without heart---then
prepare for spoilers-I'm talking to you MR BARNEY.<br /><br />The Emperor has no clothes! Mr. Barney you have been outted! I have seen Jodorowsky's HOLY MOUNTAIN. And your thin, fake veil of BS has been lifted. You have stolen your images your style and your ENTIRE ART CATALOGUE from this man. Now that HOLY MOUNTAIN has been released FINALLY let's hope the powers that be at the Art Councils of the world STOP FINANCING YOU! Poor Jodorowsky-lost in a financial battle with the Beatles Lawyer when he is the Lennon/McCartney of film-making. And BTW while Jodorowsky is the Beatle-YOU ARE THE MONKEES! A cheap thin soulless rip off only liked by facile kitschy college freshmen. And BTW I am a filmmaker. If you are interested in making a reality film-I will legally fight you in a ring defending Jodorowsky-you, defending outright thievery. | 0neg
|
Drawing Restraint 9. dir: Matthew Barney.<br /><br />How do you know when you're in the middle of a pretentious art film? Is it that there is only 8 lines of dialogue in 140 minutes of film? Is it when Bjork is wearing what looks like a giant furry pita on her head in a pseudo-Asian ritual? Maybe when mammoth turds and spinal columns are used in a whale blubber experiment. Or, when you're about ready to kill the composer for making a minimal, and still annoying, version of a Philip Glass score? In any case, Drawing Restraint 9 is among the most pretentious of the modern art movies. At 135 minutes, it adds to its pretension by being boring to boot. I would call the use of color stunning, and the opening sequence interesting, but the rest of the movie looked like it was filmed for a Discovery Channel documentary. That is until it looks like they were trying to film their version of P-ss Christ, but that will be coming up later.<br /><br />Actually, the documentary-esquire portions were the best parts of it. The surface plot is about a whaling ship, and then there is a ritual about making whale fat. Then, there are the guests in the form of Bjork and Matthew Barney who are welcomed on the ship by being put through a ritual of humiliation which includes passed-out head shaving (think frat boy pranks), nicotine patches, and giant furry pita hats. Then there is mutual evisceration, cannibalism, and lets not forget the giant turd.<br /><br />Matthew Barney has written that this is about "the relationship between self-imposed resistance and creativity." That's almost like saying, "if you don't get it, then you're not creative in your interpretation, so sod off because I'm an artist." Oh, wait, that's the POST-modern interpretation of that sentence and what the movie would be about if it was POST-modern. But, its supposed to be Modern art. Which is about the art itself.<br /><br />So, let's start this whole interpretation bit, shall we? The following lines are only 3/4 serious and should not be taken as any realistic attempt to interpret the movie.<br /><br />The first half-hour concerns pearl divers and the construction of a giant ramp. Obviously, the ramp is symbolic of the need for self-elevation to whatever standards you hold dear, and the pearl divers are looking for pearls of wisdom. Then, on a whaling ship, they build a crate that looks like it is in the crude shape of a whale. Obviously a crude element of foreshadowing.<br /><br />On the ship, they make whale fat inside the shape of the whale, and take out the fins portion. They replace this with a spinal column and later a giant turd. These are supposed to be the states of the movie itself. When its fat, its entertaining but bad for you. When it is the spinal column, its the "important" parts of the movie, or the backbone so to speak. Then, the giant turd is the bowels of the movie, or when the movie is crap.<br /><br />Bjork and Matthew Barney the arrive on separate ships, are put into strange humiliating outfits which AREN'T EVEN WELL MADE OR SYMMETRICAL, one suspects that they ran out of money and Barney was trying to quit smoking. SO, they put patches on his head. They go through a ritual and learn about the ship from a Japanese wise man, who tells them that the ship is scarred from when another ship hit it; a crash or intersection, if you will. This inspires Bjork and Barney, who are different on the outside, to start cutting each other's legs off and eat them so they could turn into whales themselves and be the same person. They intersect. Oh, did I forget to mention that this has been done in a Robbie Williams video? Then, the pearl divers come back with their mouths full of pearls of knowledge which they let fall to make a stupid Venn Diagram. Barney made it through 8th grade geometry, obviously. Or, maybe at least some social studies.<br /><br />Oh, and did I forget Bjork's ear-gouging I-want-to-kill-her score? At times it is hypnotic, but at others you just want to assassinate her.<br /><br />Art film is one thing, but when you just throw up all sorts of symbolism in the hopes of getting a reaction out of people, it becomes a self-destructive joke. When do you cross the line between becoming a joke in terms of art? Dali and Bunuel frequently made surreal pieces of nonsense but were more coherent and/or entertaining than this piece of trash. Un Chien Andalou had the sensibility to cram as much symbolism as it could into less than half an hour.<br /><br />So, can I recommend this? Only if you like dull HIGH ART films with lots of symbolism and flat imagery.<br /><br />D+ | 0neg
|
I watched this movie as a preview of a Matthew Barney art exhibit. It certainly prepared me. I almost skipped the exhibit and, in retrospect, probably should have.<br /><br />Aside from the score being great (Bjork) and the photography rich and colorful, the content was mostly tedious and predictable. Gee, I really needed to see someone wearing pearls to figure out what the pearl-divers were up to. The film was mostly a silly mixture of Japanese cultural references and industrial shots of modern whaling technology being used in a mock-hunt/harvest. The film "peaks" with enough gratuitous shock-art to turn your stomach.<br /><br />What was the point of the movie? While others might argue that it is an anti-whaling piece, one could equally argue that it somehow also justifies whaling. Personally I think it was Barney's attempt at "flashing" the audience with his anal, fecal, self-mutilation, and cannibalistic fetishes.<br /><br />Bottom line: unless you really get off on Barney's sense of art, don't bother seeing this movie. The message is obscure, the pace slow, and the cultural references pretentious. If you're after shock-art, you'll do better at one of the many "Undead" movies or hunting down an old copy of Hustler and taking in a fecal-cartoon. | 0neg
|
I couldn't agree more with another reviewer that mentioned Jodorowsky.<br /><br />Barney seems to be utterly boring and uninspired "content-wise". He can produce eye-candy (and I like candy), but its pretentiousness and fundamental artistic emptiness just diminishes all the joy. <br /><br />I am afraid that many people don't distinguish between similar (but really only on the surface) works of Jodorowsky or even more linear film-makers like Tarkovski or Kubrick (I love 2001 Odyssey and was never bored through the ending scenes...) That kind of art as M.Barney's makes adds confusion and fends off the viewers that could otherwise start to appreciate experimental cinema. Typical empty post-modern "conceptual" art. And check his interviews. I just don't buy it, sorry. And so boring. <br /><br />I was never bored seeing Alejandro Jodorowsky's movies, while Drawing Restraint 9 was an utter disappointment. Especially while it offered the possibilities to be something, to actually tell something in a non-linear unorthodox way (like the beginning and the great choreographed dance and preparations for the ship to sail out. Ships "meeting" on the sea... Ideas of feces as an object of value(if it was feces). Those "pearl" divers... Everything could construct a great surreal movie with some content. But it didn't. ANd those horrible pretentious scenes of dressing up and fake tea ceremony... How vain and fake and philosophically pretentious but empty can it get?<br /><br />I has some great picturesque scenes, but the whole movie became so boring and pretentious and utterly empty and fake that it made me physically sick.<br /><br />And it doesn't have good tempo. I like slow pace movies, but this was just boring in some scenes - because it was pretentious and fake - so I was just forced to witnessed prolonged scenes of artistic vanity...<br /><br />That kind of movies just kill the art and spirit in my view. <br /><br />I want more Jodorowsky!!! | 0neg
|
Don't get the impression from other reviewers that this film stinks cos it's ambivalent about the Japanese whaling industry (which, morally, is no worse than the US meat trade or the Scottish haggis cull), it stinks cos it's pretentious tosh, the sort of up-its-own-behind guff that gets modern art a bad name. That said, there are some stunning images, but there are stunning images in the average bus ride if you use your imagination, so that's no reason to go and see this nonsense. What happens in the film happens very slowly and often accompanied by a soundtrack that sounds like a cat being gutted, and then, just when you thinks it's finished, it starts again. I saw it it in a porn cinema in Rome which had been hired for the weekend to show Barney's film works, which is an admirable and clever way to reclaim what had once been a local fleapit from the dirty-old-men-in-macs brigade, but if the trendy young things and the slightly older beard-stroking Bjork fans were to be honest, everyone might have had a lot more fun if they'd just shown one of the pornoes! | 0neg
|
Slow and nice images changed one another, with sometimes annoying music (you know Bjork) in background, for the first 75% of the movie. If you did not have enough sleep, that's a good time. <br /><br />But, in the last 20% of the movie director decides to bring idea of re-birth, re-incarnation or else, through S&M images: "spiritual lovers" are cutting each others bodies with knives. For me it was very much disturbing and actually changed general impression of blend of abstract art and images of modern Japanese mystery. <br /><br />Operator and director are great, but weird. <br /><br />Did not enjoy it at all. | 0neg
|
This has got to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen! There were people leaving the theatre, others were falling asleep (ok, it was a late night show)... This is a no-sense movie, one of those who can make you never want to see an out of mainstream picture again. I would love to watch the making-off of this movie as I am deeply interested on what goes on the minds of the authors of such garbage. Do they laugh when they create all this ridiculous stuff or do they actually think they're doing something interesting? I wonder... The soundtrack is awful apart from some instrumental stuff that reminds you of a previous Bjork album. Even if you're a fan of Bjork's music, stay home. It's the best thing to do. The little, tiny, pieces of nice music are no reason for you to go out and submit yourself to this torture. God!... | 0neg
|
I thought it would at least be aesthetically beautiful. It was slow, pretentious, and boring. I almost fell asleep. There are some decent songs, but there is this one song at the end which is just some guy yelling out "Yaowwww!" while someone taps randomly on a wooden object. That being said, there are some pretty songs, but it's not worth seeing hte movie over. Go on itunes (they have the album), preview it, and choose the good ones. <br /><br />Half the movie is some guy making tea. Well, that's a slight exaggeration. But you'll see what I mean if you see it. That being said: DON'T SEE IT! | 0neg
|
"Drawing Restraint 9" is a kind of movie one either loves or hates; fortunately or not, I left it with a strong feeling of wasted time and of being thoroughly stuffed with "killing whales is bad" propaganda. Aesthetically, the movie could have been pleasing, especially its first half, until it is not clear that every action portrayed serves as an allegory of various aspects of whale hunting. Until then, it might be slightly amusing to look at daily chores of japan workers, but later it becomes obvious that anything that appears on the screen is a propaganda, and no single frame is an exception. I use the word "propaganda" because the movie uses basically the old morality play device, where "good" and "bad" are not deduced in the course of action but are set in stone. Probably it's just me, but I find such type of art shallow and preconceived, even when it's all about the noble (no sarcasm here) quest of protecting the environment.<br /><br />In my opinion it is a cardinal sin when a movie material is stretched out without any justification, for the sake of stretching only. In my opinion, "Drawing Restraint 9" could've been easily fit into 75 minutes, but has a torturous length of 2 and 1/4 hours. Yes, there were interesting shots, but there were not enough of these to leave 15-minute gaps of nothingness without notice. The movie has no standard scenario, and there's no evolution of characters, but neither it is a documentary, it's rather a kind of conceptual installation. That's an unusual form for a movie, but it still can be viewed as art even when the concept is as simple and naive as here. OTOH I also believe that the director should've had some honesty and did not pretend that it could be only delivered in no less than 135 minutes.<br /><br />And yes, the music score mostly resembled whale sounds. How surprising.<br /><br />2/10. | 0neg
|
Renowned cinematographer Freddie Francis (Glory, The Elephant Man) directs this pretty bad horror/drama film. 19th Century England has a different view of how the practice of medicine should be handled than Dr. Thomas Rock, the law stating that only the bodies of hung criminals can be studied and experimented on. But the stockpile of these bodies is a small one, and Rock needs more - and he prefers them fresher. Being a maverick within his circle, he begins to pay people to find bodies for him to study and test on. Desperate sleazebags Robert Fallon and Timothy Broom get wind of this job opportunity and begin to murder people and sell these bodies to Rock. Naturally, this kind of action has even worse consequences than practicing on the dead bodies of non-criminals, and leads to trouble for everyone. While the overall story sounds intriguing on paper, almost everything about The Doctor And The Devils is laughably bad.<br /><br />After the first fifteen minutes of the film you are already beginning to question your decision of sitting down to watch the film. The entire look of the film is just ugly. Seeing as how the film takes place in the slums of England during the 19th Century, the filmmakers were probably going for an "ugly" look, but they don't do it in an artful way. Everything from the sets to the cinematography just look cheap, feeble, and disgusting. Also, just about everything scene is filled with something that you simply cannot take seriously, and most of the time this has to do with someone (both in the small and large roles) doing something that looks or sounds completely ridiculous. Francis sure didn't help out his actors much.<br /><br />Jonathan Pryce and Stephen Rea play the twisted buddies of the film, Fallon and Broom respectively, and are very bombastic but very bad. Their characters are by nature crazy, but Pryce and Rea overact the parts to death. They especially have trouble keeping the same accent from shot to shot - Pryce in particular goes from Cockney to Irish to Long John Silver to some kind of lagoon creature and so on and so forth. It's also a humor riot to see Twiggy in this film at all, let alone playing an in-demand street whore, since she can't act to save her life (though her song during the final credits isn't so funny). Boy she sure came a long way: from "flower power" to "I'll take mee clothes off for a shillin'!" As bad as those three actors are in this film, Julian Sands takes home the award for the worst performance of the film. He is just as lame as it gets, giving one laugh-out-loud attempt after another at portraying anger, love, happiness, anxiety - pick an emotion, any emotion! <br /><br />There's only one good thing about The Doctor And The Devils: Timothy Dalton's performance of Dr. Rock. Despite being surrounded by cinematic sewage, Dalton is quite excellent; giving an electric portrayal of an overly driven yet good natured man. Too bad the rest of the film could not have been as good as Mr. Dalton.... | 0neg
|
As others have noted, this should have been an excellent Hammer-style film, and it seems to me that that's how most of the actors were instructed to play it... but the screenplay is so leaden, poorly paced, and filled with a lot of dull soliloquies (poor Timothy Dalton is saddled with most of them) that it's all too overblown and self-important. This is an uncharacteristically weak performance from Dalton, although he quietly nails the climactic scene where Dr. Rock finally realizes what he's done. The only actor who comes off really well is Patrick Stewart who is a most welcome sight. Freddie Francis may have been a great cinematographer, but he was a lousy director. | 0neg
|
This film is probably the worst film that I have ever seen. I'm studying french at college and thus understood all the dialog, so the language barrier wasn't an issue. I must say it is really hard to empathize with any of the characters depicted in the movie. There is only one professional actor in the cast and I'm guessing no professional directors or writers.<br /><br />Although I have rated it 1 out of 10 it probably doesn't merit such a poor rating. This is merely a futile effort of lowering its current overall rating of 7.3 to something more realistic. Perhaps 4.3 would be a more accurate rating because the film is a true non-event 100 minutes or so in length that you will never get back.<br /><br />The real shame is that I am sure some college student is busting his nut making a film twice as good and half the length. However if you want to join the bandwagon which seems to be rolling around IMDb you might as well go ahead give "Lost in Translation" a 10 as well. | 0neg
|
This is a story of a Jewish dysfunctional family. The parents have divorced and mom remains back east in the house. The father, Murray Abromowitz, moves with his children to California, and moves around Beverly Hills so that his children can get the best education possible.<br /><br />Things really become funny when Marisa Tomei, Murray's niece, comes to lives with the group.<br /><br />The film deals with the various adventures of the family complicated by the drug scene of the affluent neighborhood.<br /><br />Jessica Walter costars as a woman who wants Murray to move in with her since she wants a companion.<br /><br />Carl Reiner and Rita Moreno come in towards the end. They play Murray's brother and sister-in-law respectively; they're also the parents of Tomei. In front of the children, Reiner lets loose reminding Murray that he has been paying the bills for them all along.<br /><br />The film ends on a sour note as the embarrassed family moves out of their fancy digs and take to riding around Beverly Hills in their car. I guess the film is promoting independence and some good old self-esteem. | 0neg
|
---what happened to these unlikeable people. Alan Arkin was, as usual, unfunny and just walks through the role. The kids are all a mess. Mariesa Tomei probably wishes this role had never come her way. And what are Carl Reiner and Rita Moreno doing in this really bad, mean movie? If you enjoy watching losers wallow in their disfunction, and not try in any way to do better, this is your film. All others, take a walk, read a book, or see something else.<br /><br />Jane | 0neg
|
The most difficult thing about this movie is to say anything positive about it. The characters were stereotypical "white-trash", the movie's "plot" was stunted from the beginning, and the worst feature of this movie was that the nudity was so blatantly from body doubles it was funny. Regretfully, that was the only funny thing in the movie. Ms. Jenkins would be better served if in the future, she would refrain from using her life-story to "entertain" people. It was simply that bad. The one positive aspect of this movie (this has nothing to do with the lack-of-quality of the film) is that my brother shelled out the money for this stinker. | 0neg
|
From the critical acclaim, I expected more from this movie and from Tamara Jenkins. The story just meandered along and didn't seem to have a point or a plot. And I find it hard to believe that a 14 year old girl (mature for her age or no) would be so blase about getting the loss of her virginity "over with." Maybe I am too young to relate (I was four years old in 1976), but I didn't have any problems connecting with the stories of Shakespeare in Love or Life is Beautiful and I wasn't alive for either of those settings. The cast is very good but unfortunately for them the script did not alow them to engage the audience. Overall, Slums had its moments but unless you are yearning to reminisce over halter tops and tube socks, I would say skip this one. | 0neg
|
I was really looking forward to this movie based on the previews and press it received, but after viewing it I was terribly disappointed. Slums is a totally unfunny film mixed with a Todd Solondz type of disturbing family reality sans Todd's brand of humor. The story drags along and each scene is worse than the last. Maybe I missed the point, but if this film is an example of every girl's growing up experience I am glad to be a man. | 0neg
|
The film did what it set out to do: show how a young girl copes with poverty and grows into her maturity. However, for most of us, this subject has been explored adequately and in most instances with more sophistication than done here. The movie fixated on breasts, which soon became boring and I lost interest. If this was on TV, I would've switched to the latest news on the Starr Report. That's how boring I found this movie. | 0neg
|
Tierney's an authentic tough guy, but this movie misfire from normally competent RKO undercuts his impact at every turn. The script is about as plausible as OJ Simpson at a Ten Cmmandments dinner. Just count the times Tierney's incredible car companions swallow one lame excuse after another for his evasive and violent acts. The old cliché about it "only happening in the movies" applies here in spades. Then there's the guy playing the watchman, who appears to have wandered in from a boozy WC Fields comedy, ruining the menacing mood in the process. The static one-room sets don't help either, and neither does director Feist's obvious lack of feel for the material. Then add a final car chase missing both imagination and pay-off, and the results are pretty flat. In fact the movie only picks up in the station-house scenes where hard-bitten cops discover the hidden powers of innocent-looking gas station attendants. Too bad that Tieney's career never really gelled. I gather that was due largely to being as big a tough guy off-screen as on and getting in one sleazy scrape after another. His ice-cold manner and clarity of emotion remind me at times of Lee Marvin at his tough-guy best. Anyway this project might have worked as a radio play, but as a movie with a promising noir title, it's a disappointment. | 0neg
|
"This story is dedicated to women," according to the introduction, "who have been fighting for their rights ever since Adam and Eve started the loose-leaf system." When "Politics" was filmed, the Nineteenth Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote, was only a decade old. And, the film deals with the wielding of political power by women as a voting group. Advocating prohibition, and shutting down speakeasies, was a main concern for women at the time.<br /><br />Good-natured Marie Dressler (as Hattie Burns) becomes politically active, after a young woman is shot and killed coming out of a speakeasy. She wants the liquor-selling joints closed; and, is drafted into a Mayoral run, after delivering a powerful speech at a women's rally. Ms. Dressler is supported by her tenants, best friend Polly Moran (as Ivy Higgins) and her stuttering husband Roscoe Ates (as Peter Higgins). Dressler's run for Mayor of Lake City draws opposition from men in town; so, Dressler orders the women to go on strike, denying them, "everything" in the "parlor, bedroom, and bath." <br /><br />The film sounds much better than it turned out. The humor, frankly, isn't too good; and, it features some unfunny and moderately offensive situations ("You look like Madame Queen" refers to an Amos and Andy character). And, the mixing of shootings and slapstick doesn't mix well, this time. Producers might have considered making the film more dramatic, focusing exclusively on Dressler and the characters played by William Bakewell (as Benny Emerson) and Karen Morley (as Myrtle Burns).<br /><br />**** Politics (7/25/31) Charles Reisner ~ Marie Dressler, Polly Moran, Roscoe Ates | 0neg
|
I have not seen this movie in ages but figured I'd comment on it anyway, mostly because the memory of disliking it so intently is burned into my memory cells. The original THE GETAWAY was no prize to begin with but at least had the distinctions of being 1) A Sam Peckinpah movie, 2) Featured Steve McQueen, Ben Johnson, and Slim Pickens, 3) Was a relatively painless way to blow away an hour and a half of time.<br /><br />By comparison, the 1994 version comes across as little more than a vanity piece for the then red hot Alec Baldwin and his soon to be divorced wife, Kim Basinger. McQueen and his then wife Allie McBride also split up soon after their version of the film was made and one can sort of picture the Baldwins at their marriage councilor arguing over who's stupid idea it was to make this movie.<br /><br />Let's just get it said and out of the way -- Alec Baldwin never was and never will be anything close to the Cooler King, and one of the reasons why this remake annoyed me so much is the perceived arrogance on Baldwin's part to presume to challenge our memory of Steve McQueen in the lead role. Like someone else points out, Peckinpah's 1972 vision of the film was a satire piece meant to sort of parody the action/adventure heist genre. By contrast Baldwin, Bassinger & company seem to be trying to evoke a more serious tone, with only Michael Madsen's and James Woods' slimy unprincipled villain characters coming off as real people.<br /><br />The movie is also decidedly mean spirited and unlikeable at a fundamental level that is difficult to put into words. One viewing was more than enough, not just because it didn't have anything new to offer but because of how artlessly it was made. Peckinpah's movie was actually a stylish little entertainment that had an upbeat mood, where this version is a slog that takes too long to amount to little or nothing. There's no artistic urgency to it's existence and some of the more uncomfortable scenes are so uncomfortable that they make the film difficult to enjoy.<br /><br />So I don't know, this was probably one of the films that helped to initiate the wave of pointless, artistically vapid big budget remakes propped up around a then name brand actor/actress, which in itself isn't a really good thing. I'd always rather see a filmmaker at least try to come up with a new idea for a movie & fall flat with something original. This movie just made me want to pull my eyebrows out, and it's revealing that over the ensuing 15 years since it's release Mr. Baldwin has become widely renowned as one of the biggest jerks in Hollywood. Thank god for "Team America" for putting him in his place.<br /><br />3/10 | 0neg
|
SPOILERS THROUGHOUT: <br /><br />The Gettaway is mostly an action movie. And what action there is to!! Shootouts, chases, dumpsters and much much more. It stars Kim Bassenger and Alec Baldwin as the Mc Coy's.<br /><br />This is a remake and I have not seen the original but really didn't care for this one at all although Bassenger and Baldwin have some nice screen chemistry. But the movie itself didn't do it for me.<br /><br />The Gettaway became really tiresome really quickly. The plot is overshadowed by one fight/chase after another and as the violence keeps piling up, Bassenger and Baldwin retain their great looks no matter what perils they maybe in. In fact, by the end of the movie they almost look BETTER then in the beginning. I don't think Bassenger's eye makeup moves once during the whole picture.<br /><br />This isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, certainly not, but it isn't very good and unless one is an action movie purist I can't see really enjoying this movie because there's just not a lot here. The Gettaway isn't terribly original either, and goes every way from unnecessarily brutal to rather dull. It really could have been better I think.<br /><br />Bassenger and Baldwin give OK performances but they don't have a lot to do except get chased and run for their lives. Sometimes less is more, after seeing the same thing over and over again it gets stale. Didn't enjoy this one to much. | 0neg
|
I cannot see why filmmakers remade this movie. <br /><br />The 1972 movie with McQueen and McGraw is almost a classic. Steve McQueen was an outstanding actor and Baldwin is only an inadequate actor. He has no passion in his play.Also the action in the original "Getaway" was fantastic. But the remake has no action! It is almost boring despite the fact that the film-making in 1972 was more difficult than in 1994. <br /><br />I don't understand the way that Baldwin imprisoned from Mexico. I think this is a mistake in the story.<br /><br />So i think that there was no need to remake it, or if they decided to remake a classic, they must choose an excellent actor for the first role, like Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt... | 0neg
|
Back when Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger were a mercurial, hot-tempered, high-powered Hollywood couple they filmed this (nearly) scene-for-scene remake of the 1972 Steve McQueen-Ali MacGraw action-thriller about a fugitive twosome. It almost worked the first time because McQueen was such a vital presence on the screen--even stone silent and weary, you could sense his clock ticking, his cagey magnetism. Baldwin is not in Steve McQueen's league, but he has his charms and is probably a more versatile actor--if so, this is not a showcase for his attributes. Basinger does well and certainly looks good, but James Woods is artificially hammy in a silly mob-magnet role. A sub-plot involving another couple taken hostage by Baldwin's ex-partner was unbearable in the '72 film and plays even worse here. As for the action scenes, they're pretty old hat, which causes one to wonder: why even remake the original? ** from **** | 0neg
|
Don't even bother with this movie, it's bad when judged on it's own merits, but when compared to the 1972 original (which IS a classic) it's down right awful. And BTW, somebody commented that the 1972 movie is bad when compared to the book. This is silly, movies should never be judged against the books they are taken from. They are 2 completely different art forms (as if this needed to be pointed out but apparently it does). If you used this criteria for all movies then "2001" would suck and so would "Forest Gump" and "Silence of the Lambs". | 0neg
|
Nowhere near the original. It's quite accurate copy bringing nothing new to the story. But the directing is very poor. Basinger is weak - without good directing. Baldwin is simply just a second league compared to McQueen. I watched it just out of curiosity, being a huge fan of Peckinpah's masterpiece, and I got what I thought. Almost a B movie with second rate acting and directing. I wasn't even disappointed, I just don't know what they were trying to do. This remake doesn't try to play with the original material, it's not a tribute and indeed it lacks some really good actor of its era.<br /><br />It reminds me of a bad xerox copy of wonderful photograph.<br /><br />This is a complete waste of your time. Save yourself 2 hours or watch the original (again:))) | 0neg
|
Any one who saw the original would have to go out and destroy this dreadful remake. Alex Baldwin trying to imitate the late Steve Mcqueen in a word for word remake just doesn't work. While Baldwin has done some admirable work this is a flop from start to finish. McQueen had charisma, never try to compete with a star. As for Kim in the role of Ali McGraw enough said. McQueen looked dangerous, menacing and believable as Doc, the film had excitement and suspense,Baldwin and company made this into a comedy,I laughed the one and only time I saw this miserable film. And that dreadful hairstyle for Michael Madsen who is one of today's more exciting and believable actors! Did the makeup people have it in for Michael, what were they thinking.If you wish to see movie-making the way it was under Sam Peckinpah's direction Get the original! | 0neg
|
What's in here ?! Let me tell you. It's the presence of (Alec Baldwin). He's not a great actor but maybe a nice star with some good movies which this is not one of them. He did nothing here more than anything he did before or after. So not to mention (literally !) the matter of (Steve McQueen) being at the same role in the original because I don't want to make that comparison in the first place. I'm not a big fan or even a fan of (Kim Basinger), she got a lot of bad movies on her and even at her best she looks average ! And it gets on my nerve indeed whenever they talk about her seductive rare beauty !!?? Well, if being a blond would make anyone captivating then I'll dye my hair in yellow as soon as possible ! And what is it with all the craziness over miss Basinger's Legs ??!! It's surely insanity or bad tasting ? As I don't see them both as not sexy only, but UGLY too ! And if you hate that so shoot me down but you know what ?! I've just watched this movie so I'm dead already !. Yet, what would make you really suffer in unbearable way is that nothing of the credits goes to the one she deserves the most
And of course I mean (Jennifer Tilly)..Now we're talking about a true genuine seductive chick with such unforgettable body and one unique sense of allurement like a nasty brunette (Marilyn Monroe) however much more healthier !! (I can't help it, she was the only new and watchable thing in here !). (Michael Madsen) as the bad guy was much appealing as well as effective more than the good guys, (James Woods) is here to summarize the early events beside the pool (so the trailer would be by his voice later !) and he knew before all that this is a whole Hollywood's stuff so "Do your thing, take your cash, and good luck as an actor in other movies !", the editing gave the movie a serious personality along with violent atmosphere done by suitable shining cinematography, so the main goods of it (The action, The thrill, ..) are here and fairly well-made, though any echo for deep meanings about (the kinds of betrayal) as the main dramatic motif of the whole thing is not that strong so don't wait for it. OK, it's all in all another remake without anything special (Except Jennifer Tilly's spicy moments !) so I think I tried to be objective as much as I could therefore I shouldn't end my review saying that (Basinger) or anyone here did better than this movie.. It would be an insult because frankly.. Anything is better than this movie! | 0neg
|
POSSIBLY VERY MINOR SPOILERS<br /><br />This movie is billed as the first Russian horror movie. Unfortunately, as far as I am concerned, "The Witch" (its Russian title) will take a place of dishonor in the gallery of horrible Russian movies. It is based on Nikolai Gogol's story "Viy" which is a classic in Russia. "Based" is the key word here since no familiarity with the story is required. Instead, the less you know about Gogol, the better. <br /><br />It is a unique production because we are quite used to directors taking stories from other cultures and adapting them to their own culture. The spate of American remakes of foreign films is a prime example, but then again, Sturgess turned Kurosawa's Seven Samurai into The Magnificent Seven with splendid results, and Kurosawa transferred Shakespeare's Macbeth into Japan to make an incredibly powerful Throne in Blood, while King Lear became a riveting Ran. However, with "The Witch," we have Russians transplanting a Russian classical tale onto the American soil. The movie was shot in Estonia in English with the aim of dubbing it into English using American actors and have reasonably synchronous lip movements. <br /><br />As a natural consequence, lost is the colorful Ukrainian background for the story, in comes a drab American small town seemingly lifted from some outdated horror book manual. Gone is the boozy seminarian Khoma Brutus, instead we have a boozy journalist who is about to win Pullitzer prize, and who at the same time writes about X-Files-like events and frequents Miss Boobs contests. (I never thought Pullitzer prize was given for that kind of writing, now I humbly stand corrected.) In a strange nod to Russianness, the journalist is named Ivan Berkhoff. They should've named him John Smith because it is impossible to get more hackneyed, clichéd and generic than this movie. <br /><br />Berkhoff goes to a town named Castleville, gets stranded on a dirt road, staggers on until he finds a dilapidated house and is rather un-welcomed by an old crone. All that to the accompaniment of a radio announcement about the forces of evil being at their most powerful, and people better staying indoors and avoiding water. Need I mention that it's raining really hard? After a few supposedly frightening scenes which had me laughing, the story finds our journalist dressed as a priest, he's mistaken for a priest, and the local sheriff tells him his daughter who died after being brutally attacked wanted the new priest to pray for her for three nights. At this point, the action supposedly starts. Those who have time to kill are welcome to it. <br /><br />What is wrong with this film? Everything, starting with the dialog and down to the prop department. The dialog which I heard in Russian was clearly originally written in English, and it was compiled exclusively from clichés and platitudes picked from American films. The actors just as clearly struggled with English because the timing of their speech was labored and unnatural, and the Russian dubbing followed suit. The acting is mostly atrocious, and not only because the actors find it often difficult to talk but because they don't have anything approaching a range of facial expressions. For the most part, they're just blank or you wish they were. The only exceptions being the sheriff played by Lembit Ulfsak, a fine Estonian actor, and Arnis Lizitis who plays a wheelchair bound resident of Castleville. Oh, and a rooster of course who's absolutely natural on camera! I know actors complain of being upstaged by dogs and cats but when Nikolaev is upstaged by a rooster it is a sad testimony to the general quality of acting in the film.<br /><br />There wasn't a single scary moment in the entire film, and there wasn't a single original moment in the film either. Mind you, this comment's coming from somebody who's rather inexperienced with horror. The film is filled with standard moves used in horror movie since the genre's inception. At a critical moment, the camera lingers lovingly on a kerosene lamp. The lamp promptly goes out. It must have seen a few horror movies, too. An example of supreme idiocy comes at another moment, a character jumps out of a bathtub and runs at the camera. He's wearing something the looks like loincloth! It doesn't get any more idiotic than this!<br /><br />Those in Russia who liked it claim it should've been advertised as a mystical thriller. I wasn't thrilled either. It was run-of-the-mill from start to finish. I particularly enjoyed the fact that the entire population of the little town behaved as if they knew exactly they lived in a horror movie, except they weren't quite sure whether it had zombies or not. Therefore, some of them acted zombie-like just in case. <br /><br />The makers of the film say it's about finding faith. Such a fine collections of idiotic actions, stupidly contrived moments, and, yes, clichés, doesn't deserve to be about finding faith. The movie is so thoroughly and utterly fake it deserves only to be an exhibit in a wax figure museum. | 0neg
|
Nikolai Gogol's story "Viy" has been filmed again and released to home video in the US via Faith Films.<br /><br />The original story concerns a priest who has to watch over the body of a witch with only his faith to protect him. Greatly expanded and set in America, though clearly filmed in Russia (the houses,clothing and furnishing are all wrong despite the English signs), this is an odd film that doesn't really work.Part of it is the weird setting that tries very hard to be backwoods America but clearly isn't.There are also some weird, intentionally oblique moments as the main character being a reporter at the start and a priest a short time later. I'm not sure why they did that, even after watching the making of piece on the DVD) The other problem is the dubbing which is beyond awful. Its done in such away that everyone speaks when their lips are not on camera- or if they are the voices don't even remotely match the lip flaps. I don't know if its Faith Films fault or that of the producers who made the film hoping to dump into the West (revealed in the making of piece).<br /><br />The film isn't very good. As I've said it has all sorts of technical issues that just make this an odd ball curio. Despite some really good looking horror images the film never works as a horror film. As film to engender faith its much too confused in this retelling to amount to make anyone feel anyone closer to god.<br /><br />Given the choice I'd give it a pass, even at a bargain bin price. My advice would be to find the 1960's version of the tale called Viy which will bring both some shivers and some understanding about a belief in god. | 0neg
|
Ivan (Valeri Nikolayev) is a bitter, cynical journalist who investigates the unexplained. He travels to this small town where it's said that a witch (Ita Ever) is terrorizing the community.<br /><br />His car stalls and he takes refuge in a small building, and meets a beautiful, mysterious girl. Suddenly she turns into a demon and he kills her, and the town is wondering who murdered this woman...who I guess was the witch but I am not entirely sure. Ivan is now being pursued by her spirit, or something, and he has to have faith, or something, to beat it.<br /><br />I really hate Christian films. They are usually filled with lame actors, stupid storyline and minimal effects. Not to mention that this isn't just a Christian film...but a foreign one as well. The voice-over actor for Ivan made the movie more comical than terrorizing, because it is so high pitched and whiny. You won't miss much by missing out on this film. | 0neg
|
As a horror-movie fan I try to watch all significant novelties of this genre, especially those which are the products of my native cinema. And I can say that that the "Power of Fear" (or "Vedma" as the Russian title of it) is one of the weakest film among them. Firstly, it can't scary even a little kid, it paces so slowly and so predictable that there is no place for the real horror. Frankly speaking, it's bad in all points: from the goofy plot (I don't know why the Russian producers/director decided to transform the classic story about Ukrainian witchcraft into some lame and ridiculous modern-day-America thriller. I absolutely agree with the previous reviewer it doesn't thrill a bit) and to the terrible and cheesy actors' work. All actors including the leading Valeri Nikolayev and Yevgeniya Kryukova who are quite famous in Russia look like wooden dolls or something like that and it seems to me they didn't even bother to play at all, only spoke their English lines without any expression. And at the end I don't really understand why they filmed this flick in English with Russian actors? I think it was their wrong turn. At least they could cast some American or English actors for the leading parts to make them look more convincing. The same I can say about so called "small American town backgrounds" which were shot in Estonia and look like it. The only positive moment I found in the "Power of Fear" is the visual effects. They are not excellent but rather good for the Russian film. And the music is OK, at least it doesn't irritate me. That's why I give it two stars. Overall, if you want to see good horror film don't waste your time and money on this boring flick. And if you are looking for something that claims to be a Russian horror I'd advise you to find a copy of "Viy or The Spirit of Evil". It's really the terrific movie based on the same novel as "Power of Fear" but much, much better. | 0neg
|
I rented this film yesterday mostly due to the good-looking art and the summary given on the back of the jacket. After popping it into my DVD player I re-examined the jacket cover and even though I took the cover out of from the plastic viewer, I STILL could not read any of the production detail information about the film. This film is entitled Evil on the Jacket and had to locate it by going to Faith Films website to find out any linkage to it here on IMDb.<br /><br />The filming and special affects done in the film looked quite good ... THEN, a line-reading actor spoke. Oh dear ... this actor's reading sounded like some pimple-faced high school jock whose voice just managed to change pitch, and no attempt given to go beyond reading the lines from the script. At first I thought I got a bad disc out of audio sync, then had to surmise it was a foreign film since I couldn't read the jacket... English dialog dubbed. If they'd casted the right person for dubbing the dialog, this film MIGHT have been decent. I gave it a chance of about 20 minutes before ejecting it when I discovered the bad line reader wasn't going to get killed off, but stay as the constant main fixture. Yes, it is THAT bad! The jacket cover art and the art done in the film are great, so gave the one star, but minus 1,999,999 stars for the rotten dialog. I do not recommend this one! | 0neg
|
This movie is a rather odd mix of musical, romance, drama and crime with a sniff of film-noir to it. It's basically one messy heap of different genres, of which none really works out like it was supposed to.<br /><br />This movie is an attempt by Mickey Rooney to be taken more serious as an actor. He's a former child-star who always used to star in in happy comical- and musical productions at the start of his career. In this movie he picks a different approach (although the musical aspects are still present in the movie). But his role is actually quite laughable within the movie. I mean Mickey Rooney as a tough player? He's an extremely small boyish looking man. He actually was in his 30's already at the time of this movie but he seriously looks more like a 16 year old. Hearing him say babe to women and hearing talking tough to gangsters who are about 3 times bigger than he is just doesn't look and feel right. He simply isn't convincing in his role.<br /><br />Because the movie mixes so many different genres, the story also really feels as a messy one. Somewhere in it there is a crime plot and somewhere in it is a romantic plot-line and one about living your dream but none of it works out really due to the messy approach and handling of it all. It just isn't an interesting or compelling movie to watch. László Kardos is also a director who has done only 10 movies in his lifetime, despite the fact that his career span from 1935 till 1957. He must have been a struggling director who had a hard time getting work into the industry and instead once in a while was given a lesser script to work with. His movies are all unknown ones and normally also not of too high quality.<br /><br />Let's also not forget that this is a '50's movie but yet it more feels like a '40's one or perhaps even as one from the '30's. This is of course mostly due to the fact that this movie got shot in black & white. Generally speaking black & white movies from the '50's often have a cheap looking feeling over it and this movie forms no exception.<br /><br />It's a rather strange sight seeing Mickey Rooney and Louis Armstrong and his band as themselves performing together in a sequence. It wasn't the only movie Armstrong appeared in though and he would often pop up in these type of movies, often simply as himself. I guess jazz lovers can still somewhat enjoy watching this movie due to its music, since there is quite an amount of it present in this movie. The movie actually received an Oscar nomination for best original song.<br /><br />An awkward little movie and outing from Mickey Rooney.<br /><br />4/10 | 0neg
|
I was at first disgusted with director Sun-Woo Jang because I had felt that he cheated me. Jang had the potential to create a strong, deeply emotional film about sex and its effects on people, but instead chose to focus his strength on the pornography element more than the actual human element. I couldn't see the characters at first and his sloppy introduction which blended both realism and cinema together was amateurish at best
yet this film remained in my mind for days after I viewed it. What stayed with me wasn't the story, it wasn't the characters, nor was it the apparent pornographic nature of the film, but the transition that Jang demonstrated between Y and J. If you watch this film carefully, you will see that both begin in an exploration phase of their relationship, eager to jump into the unknown, but not quite certain the next step. As they continue to meet, exploring new avenues of pleasure, they continually jump between the aggressor and the aggressed. Jang initially explores the idea that J is the one that in control of the situation, then hauntingly, the reversal happens when J becomes obsessed with Y. It is a very small change, and due to the graphic content of this film, it can easily be missed, but it is there. It becomes apparently clear near the end when J cannot live with Y, as their meetings become less frequent, and J attempts to become a part of normal society. This was a huge and very exciting element to this film to see right before your eyes, but alas, it was the only element of this film worth viewing.<br /><br />I will ignore those that speak of this film as nothing more than pornographic, because there are human elements at the core of this film, as underdeveloped as they are, they are there. It is a film about a facet of our lives that is very rarely explored in cinema or talked about in the papers. What happens behind closed doors is never known
or so we should believe. While the act itself does becomes repetitive after a bit, director Jang tries to change it up a bit with some constantly changing scenery. Our characters are continually moving from hotel room to hotel room to best quench their thirst for each other's flesh. This is fun at first, but again, Jang's repetitive streak seems to make it feel boring than exciting. This leads me to the biggest issue that I had with this film. Jang had a great story with Gojitmal, but where he failed (outside of the obvious choice to focus directly on the pornographic side) was that he took scenes, repeated them time and again, without changing in front of us to allow us to get to know the characters. Where was Jang going with this movie? Did he want the sex to tell the stories, or did he believe the characters would? He failed in this sense because by the end of the film we know so little about Y and J that we could care less how they resolve themselves. The ending seems almost random at best as Jang attempts to create a final resolution for our two, absolute unknowns, of this film. I have to give Jang some credit for trying, but not much. He attempted to create some sub-stories that would create the personal element that we were lacking, but they just couldn't congeal well together. Y's brother and J's wife were those plot points, but again, due to him focusing so strongly on the sexual element, these stronger sub-stories became un-rememberable and down-right dull. Maybe it was just how I viewed this film, but outside of the sexual scenes, nothing else worked together. We knew nothing about J and Y and that is why Gojitmal failed.<br /><br />Finally, I would like to say that this film could have benefited from having a strong score or a daftly remote music genre element to it to bring us, the viewers, closer to the emotions being felt by J and Y. From what I can remember, and I am trying to push this film far from my mind, I don't remember any musical undertones. Gojitmal may have been a stronger film if Jang either stylized it with music or done something to allude towards our character's beings. While I understand that he wanted the sex to speak for itself, there was just a technical element missing from this film that may have quenched a stronger desire for more. Technically, this was a poor film. Obviously an independent film in nature, it felt more like director Jang was trying to make symbolic references out of nothing instead of your typical independent of this nature. I didn't see as much of a social message or human element like mentioned above, I just felt like he threw this film together over the course of two weeks and understood that the sex would sell it enough. This was no Larry Clark production; this was sub-par and definitely needed some further technical clicks to develop it stronger than the final release! <br /><br />Overall, I think I could have liked this film and there were smaller elements that I did enjoy, but I felt this film was rushed, repetitive, and played too much towards the taboos instead of breaking them. The obvious pitfalls of this film can be seen by the last scene of this film when we are privy to how the title of this film was conceived. Our characters were uneventful, our story was underdeveloped, and we could have used something memorable to make what was happening between Y and J into something more symbolic than sex. To me, Jang was trying too much to capture art house meets pornographic
and it failed miserably. This was not a film worth the time and effort that it took to make.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of ***** | 0neg
|
I saw this feature as part of the Asian American Film Festival in New York and was horrified by the graphic, sado-masochistic, child pornography that I witnessed. The story line is hidden beneath way too many graphic sex scenes - and, not one is in the least bit erotic - sick is the more the feeling. The director seemed to be going for shock value rather the exploring the various levels of why these characters are like this. See it if you can stomach it - I still have flashbacks. | 0neg
|
"Lies" tells about an affair between an 18 year old bucktoothed female student and a scrawny 38 year old married man with the pair of protags spending about half the screen time engaged in naked sex and hokey whipping and the other half meandering through the pathetically naive storyline which seems little more than an excuse for the sex scenes. With very poor production value including obvious sanitary appliances and phony softcore sex to a story which is a messy mix of comedy and drama, "Lies" quickly becomes redundant ad nauseam. With an almost 2 hour run, subtitles, and so little substance, "Lies" is simply not recommendable. (C-) | 0neg
|
the Germans all stand out in the open and get mowed down with a machine gun. the Good guys never die, unless its for dramatic purposes. the "plot" has so many holes its laughable. (Where did the German soldiers go once they rolled the fuel tank towards the train? Erik Estrada? Please!) And the whole idea, hijacking a train? How moronic is that! The Germans KNOW where you are going to go, its not like you can leave the track and drive away! What a waste. I would rather bonk myself on the head with a ball peen hammer 10 times then have to sit through that again. I mean, seriously, it FELT like it was made in the 60s, but it was produced in 88!! 1988!! the A-Team is more believable than this horrid excuse for a movie. Only watch it if you need a good laugh. This movie is to Tele Sevalas what Green Beret was to John Wayne. | 0neg
|
It really was that bad. On a par with the (mercifully!) short-lived "Dirty Dozen" TV series that starred Ben Murphy and was made at around the same time (also on the cheap in Yugoslavia).<br /><br />I was embarrassed for the cast members of this film - and for Telly Savalas in particular. He was waaaaaay too old and fat for the role (pushing 70 when he made this garbage), and the reviewer who draws parallels with Telly the Greek in this and John Wayne in "The Green Berets" pretty much sums it up.<br /><br />Other reviewers have pointed out some of the many laughable howlers that this crime against celluloid contains, so I won't repeat them here. But I will add that I'm amazed that no-one's yet mentioned the ridiculously tiny-looking helmet that Savalas wears on his big, bloated head. <br /><br />I'm also astonished that this trainwreck of a film has a rating as high as 4.7 here at IMDb.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, it's a "1" right across the board. If you want a good example of why flogging a franchise to death really is a bad idea (especially 20-plus years after the original) - look no further than "The Dirty Dozen - The Fatal Mission".<br /><br />Awful - avoid!!!! | 0neg
|
Another made for TV piece of junk! This is an insult of a war movie (I use the word movie in it's loosest possible form!) I thought Telly Savalas's career had hit rock bottom when he did the voice over on that visit Birmingham video that's shown on Tarrant on TV on a semi regular basis, but then I'd forgot he was involved in this! I'd tried to push it into my subconscious memory, but cable TV brought the memory kicking and screaming out of me!! <br /><br />I like the bit (laughs sarcastically!) in the film which claims to be a scene from Liverpool in the forties, but it's blatantly a shot of Zagreb Cathedral in the late eighties. Also the steam train the Commando's are training on shows the JZ (Jugoslavia Zeleznice, or Yugoslav state railways) logo's on the side of the locomotive quite clearly, even though the makers have tried to black them out. Why not just film in the UK, if that's where most of the film is set? <br /><br />Cheap rubbish, and a waste of celluloid! | 0neg
|
As a Native film professor, I can honestly say that this is perhaps one of the worst films with Native content that I have ever viewed. I would rather get a root canal than view this film again. The use of stereotyping, uncreative attempts at utilizing portions of traditional coyote stories and poor camera work were only made worse by the glib uncreative story-line and bad script. The writer and director have displayed the worst parts of a colonized approach to portraying Native people and communities. If this person is Native, they need to go home and apologize to everyone they know for being an apple and for the internalized racism and poor sense of humor that they have developed. If this person is non-native, they need to seriously re-examine their white privilege and ask themselves if they are displaying unexamined, unintentional racism, or if they are intentionally being ignorant. My only hope is that the Native actors in this film had a good time and at least got paid for their efforts. If you want to see good Native films then check out: Christmas in the Clouds, Dance me Outside, Medicine River, PowWow Highway, Smoke Signals...to name just a few. | 0neg
|
This movie is ridiculous. Anyone saying the acting is great and the casting is superb have never seen even mediocre cinema. The acting is obviously terrible in the first 5 characters you meet. Lame. I feel like all the other "soaring" comments must have been made by people associated with the filmmakers. I was not very impressed by the storyline, but just wanted to see some beautiful Oregon countryside, and there was some decent cinematography--but the casting was anything BUT inspired. I think this movie also makes a mockery of the generally noble suggestion that something deep in the Amerindian culture has been ignored and perhaps lost and that reviving it is worthwhile, and possible. It places jokes in the wrong and all-too-obvious places, and makes me think it was written by the State Department or something. Back to the drawing board. To even suggest that this film deserves a place in the same vicinity of classics like Harold and Maude is absolutely retarded, and along the same line of begging and pretension and "joking" as is rampant in this film. | 0neg
|
My wife and I really had high hopes for this film, but it was a major disappointment. It was a Native American version of Mr. Magoo. A pathetic father who fails at everything he tries e.g. fishing, hunting, in an obvious way he subjects his family to his wild fantasies. His "visions" are not only ridiculous but in the process he lies to his son numerous times about various obvious things. Words cannot express how bad this film is. The children and wife are very real which makes the film even sadder. I don't get the humor... unless you like laughing at other people making a fool of themselves. I don't get how this could have come up for awards. Save your bucks, it's not worth the rental. | 0neg
|
OK, so Mr. Agrama's company (which is involved in some dubious business with former Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi) produced a horrendous mish-mash by a Mr. Carl Macek.<br /><br />What is this horrendous mish-mash I'm talking about? Well, Macek took three entirely unrelated Japanese sci-fi animated series (namely, Macross, Southern Cross and Mospeada), added TONS of dialogue - believing firmly that the American audience is too dumb to understand the narrative and artistic virtue of silence - , edited the whole lot heavily for violent content, added some metaphysical mumbo jumbo, dubbed it using some of the worst voice actors this side of acting Hell (Reba West's singing was - and still is - unbearable and a total outrage, especially compared to Mrs. Mari Iijima)... And the result was an 85-episode series with hundreds of continuity problems and plot holes.<br /><br />Of course, the mecha were cool to look at (especially those in the "Macross Saga") and the plot parts that remained unscathed were good. But whatever was good about Robotech was not the result of Macek's work or the "voice talents" he recruited. It was because of the toils and efforts of the (uncredited - why? would I be too bold to accuse HG of plagiarism here?) Japanese creators. Those of us who eventually got wind of the real deal and compared the originals to Robotech now wish we had never been exposed to Robotech. The originals are so much better, naturally, and make a lot more sense.<br /><br />Robotech, however, DID something worthwhile: it prompted legendary anime creator Leiji Matsumoto to start a campaign for the protection of Japanese anime creators' intellectual property from such unauthorized and uncalled-for reworkings that talentless people like Carl Macek produce. | 0neg
|
As far as HEIST movies go, this one is pretty weak. Continuity is pretty lousy, there isn't enough character continuity to really feel like you understand any of the characters. Peter Falk is great, and he is one of the reasons its worth watching. Falk has some great lines, like "he'll be right back, he goin' buy to some saugages" or something like that... there are a few nice scenes, although they are entirely due to the efforts of the actors. Direction, script, and editing is pretty lousy. | 0neg
|
When you look at this now and hear all the language in here, it's amazing this was rated "PG," but that's the 1970s rating system for you. Peter Falk spews out the Lord's name in vain six times in the first ten minutes alone in this movie! Yet, few people consider that offensive, and certainly not the scumbags who make movies nor the people who "rate" them.<br /><br />The cast is a clue to how profane this film can be: Falk, Peter Boyle, Allen Garfield, Warren Oates, Gena Rowlands and Paul Sorvino aren't exactly actors you wouldn't find in "The Sound Of Music."<br /><br />I like heist movies, and a lot of films by director William Friedkin, but this script doesn't deliver and it just has way too much of the "Sleazy '70s" feel to it, visually and audibly. For those who loved Falk in TV's "Columbo" it must come as a shock to hear him use as much profanity as he did in films. This is far from the only case. | 0neg
|
VAMPYRES <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.85:1<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />A motorist (Murray Brown) is lured to an isolated country house inhabited by two beautiful young women (Marianne Morris and Anulka) and becomes enmeshed in their free-spirited sexual lifestyle, but his hosts turn out to be vampires with a frenzied lust for human blood...<br /><br />Taking its cue from the lesbian vampire cycle initiated by maverick director Jean Rollin in France, and consolidated by the success of Hammer's "Carmilla" series in the UK, Jose Ramon Larraz' daring shocker VAMPYRES pushed the concept of Adult Horror much further than British censors were prepared to tolerate in 1974, and his film was cut by almost three minutes on its original British release. It isn't difficult to see why! Using its Gothic theme as the pretext for as much nudity, sex and bloodshed as the film's short running time will allow, Larraz (who wrote the screenplay under the pseudonym 'D. Daubeney') uses these commercial elements as mere backdrop to a languid meditation on life, death and the impulses - sexual and otherwise - which affirm the human condition.<br /><br />Shot on location at a picturesque country house during the Autumn of 1973, Harry Waxman's haunting cinematography conjures an atmosphere of grim foreboding, in which the desolate countryside - bleak and beautiful in equal measure - seems to foreshadow a whirlwind of impending horror (Larraz pulled a similar trick earlier the same year with SYMPTOMS, a low-key thriller which erupts into a frenzy of violence during the final reel). However, despite its pretensions, VAMPYRES' wafer-thin plot and rough-hewn production values will divide audiences from the outset, and while the two female protagonists are as charismatic and appealing as could be wished, the male lead (Brown, past his prime at the time of filming) is woefully miscast in a role that should have gone to some beautiful twentysomething stud. A must-see item for cult movie fans, an amusing curio for everyone else, VAMPYRES is an acquired taste. Watch out for silent era superstar Bessie Love in a brief cameo at the end of the movie. | 0neg
|
I was not nearly as smitten with this as many other reviewers. Sure, it has a pair of lovely girls playing erotic, lesbian vampires. Marianne Morris and Anulka D. play these two lovely sirens with razor teeth that run up to cars on a road out of the way, hitch to their home(at dusk), and invite their prey...sex-starved men to their boudoir. What happens there...well, after they disrobe and kiss each other mostly, they kill their visitors. Director Jose Ramon Larraz does have some flashes of brilliance with his camera. Some scenes are quite eerie and effectively shot, but sex alone does not hold a film up(no pun intended...at least consciously). There really isn't much of a story here. We have the two girls. We are shown some inexplicable and unexplained beginning where we see them shot with pistol. Why? What does it mean" Why do we have the guy that stays for several days greet a guy at the hotel that insists he knows him from years ago? Does that have a purpose? Of course I have even more general questions like what is a couple of nice-looking girls doing as vampires in the English countryside and having a wine cellar filled with wine from the Carpathians? Anyway, the script is riddled with such flaws. It is also very sparse on the action outside of catch victims, wine and dine them(quite literally), and then go to bed in the crypt. The end gets going with some juicier scenes, but it is anti-climatic. There are, as I said, some effective scenes by the director...I particularly liked the way the girls dressed and were filmed in the woods looking for their prey. The house is also a most impressive set. And both girls are as I said very lovely. Marianne Morris in particular stands out - in more ways than one. For you older film fans, silent screen veteran Bessie Love has a brief cameo at film's end. | 0neg
|
Ah, the sex-and-gore movie. It's too bad they don't make these anymore (unless you live in Japan). But if they all turned out like this, that is not a bad thing.<br /><br />The movie basically consists of the two lovely vampires picking up "johns" along a country road, taking them home to their castle, having crazy sex with them, and then eating them (except the first victim, who they keep around for no particular reason). Things are complicated when a woman camping with her husband becomes too curious about these mysterious women she keeps seeing. It gets real ugly from here. By the end, the two vamps are in such a bloodlust that they're eating everything in sight, and manage to let their captive victim escape. Oops, so much for that secret existence.<br /><br />The fact that the two vampyres don't mind taking their clothes off and fooling around with each other is the only thing this movie has going for it. Otherwise, it's a bloody, confusing mess (why is their tomb so far away from their castle?), watchable only for the scant few minutes of vampyre playtime. The only thing I got out of this movie was these two valuable bits of advice: shooting lesbians will not kill them; it will only turn them into vampires, and, don't pick up hookers along a country road; they are probably vampires. Other than that, it really wasn't worth my time. | 0neg
|
Lesbian vampire film about a couple on holiday who are staying on the grounds of what they think is an empty manor house but is really being used as a pair of lesbian vampires. As the vampires bring in the occasional victim the couple go about their business until the two groups come crashing together.<br /><br />Great looking film with two very sexy women as the vampires there is nothing beyond the eye candy that they provide to recommend this cult film. Yes its a sexy vampire story. No it is not remotely interesting beyond the women. To be honest there is a reason that I've been seeing stills of this film in horror books and magazines it looks great, but other than that...<br /><br />For those who want to see sexy vampires only. | 0neg
|
Roman Polanski has made many, many movies that are unexceptional. His fame bewilders me. Nothing stands out as a high point except Chinatown (I haven't seen 'Knife in the Water' or 'Tess'). Any contribution he's made to film concluded more than twenty years ago; his work is just embarrassing, safe and/or dull (The Pianist, Frantic, Oliver Twist, The Ninth Gate, Pirates).<br /><br />R's Baby must have signified the end of the establishment at the time it came out. It's lux-produced and fairly high concept for a 1968 'horror' movie (never show the baby). But this is just misconceived horror sap. Everything is arty to the point that the plot line becomes hopelessly clear very early (Um, thanks for that finale-destroying title), and on a clear day you can see the twist ending coming for days. It did not sustain my interest. I find that whatever this movie might have been, it is utterly derailed by the 1960's version of what femininity was. Farrow is such a chronic distracted, helpless waif/housewife. Her frailty is oversold... she's irritating in the extreme. There's no real ideas in it... nothing to consider except being the mother of the devil.<br /><br />The Dakota is barely exploited for it eerie potential. | 0neg
|
I really wanted to like this movie and watched all the way through thinking it had to get better. Don't get me wrong, it's not the worst flick ever but it never lives up to it's potential. The premise is good, the cast is great (I was especially pumped to witness the return of David Naughton) and, God love 'em, you can tell everyone tried their best. It just falls short over and over again. "Brutal Massacre" should serve as a constant reminder to filmmakers that only Christopher Guest can do Christopher Guest movies and, despite the fact he makes it look easy, you should probably just forget trying to do the same. Naughton and Brian O'Halloran are fantastic in this and they should be seen more often...they are the reason this gets 4 stars from me. If you're going to have the "Spinal Tap" of horror I suspect you might want the guy who made "Spinal Tap" to helm it...just thinking out loud there. | 0neg
|
I saw this movie a few days ago... what the hell was that?<br /><br />I like movies with Brian O'Halloran, they are funny and enjoyable. When I saw a name of this title and genre I thought great, this one could be really good... some parody for slashers or another gore movies... but.. then i read a preview and thought right it could be good anyway... but it wasn't...<br /><br />my opinion: if like movies they look little bit like documentary, with little bit of comedy try some Moore's movies or Alien autopsy, they are really about something. this one was empty. <br /><br />and put A comedy to title... no comment... really bad joke | 0neg
|
Alright, so I've been dying to see this movie. Stoked about the, "who's who" in horror land that are in the film....well, my friend rented this, brought it over, and we started watching it. It's supposed to be a comedy....I did not smirk even ONCE, until the 40min mark.<br /><br />Does it have to do with the budget? Not at all, in fact, there's films out there that cost CLOSE TO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and they're amazing (to me anyways). Also, while watching this film, I couldn't help but realize the similarities (i.e., STEALING) to a low budget indie film titled, "ACTRESS APOCALYPSE", read my review about it (it DESTROYS this film BTW).<br /><br />This film...it had potential it really did. It had the "star power", stolen plot (lets film the behind the scenes of the making of a movie...IE..."ACTRESS APOCALYPSE"....seriously, this angers me the more and more I think about),...it really could've been funny. A LOT, A LOT of the jokes fall flat. The acting is alright for what it is. But it dragged on, wasn't funny, and the plot was totally stolen.<br /><br />I give this a two, because it wasn't SOOO AWFUL, but that's the ONLY reason. | 0neg
|
It's funny, when you stop and think about it: fright film fans tend to a deep and abiding affection toward those who scare the daylights out of them. THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE may give us nightmares, but who among us (the Faithful) didn't feel a very real twinge of love for Gunnar Hansen in BRUTAL MASSACRE- or for Ken Foree, forever and ever the resolute hero of the original DAWN OF THE DEAD? His cameo in the remake made me want to stand up and cheer (as did Tom Savini's cameo); I kid you not. And Brian Halloran and... Well, you get my drift (if not, just stand downwind...). These are some of the Heroes of Horror. To see this many of them gathered together in a single movie is almost unheard of (at least to this degree, to my knowledge). If only the writer(s) had been up to such a monumental task. Maybe someone else, somewhere along the line, will try again. As long as it's not another half-hearted effort (like BROTHERHOOD OF BLOOD, for instance). | 0neg
|
bad acting, bad southern accents, inconsistent cinematography, horrible script...<br /><br />I was looking forward to this film at a recent film festival and was so discouraged after seeing it. It contains quote/unquote name talent, but they do not deliver. Of course the basis for this is the uneven and uninteresting story that is told.<br /><br />don't bother | 0neg
|
They're showing this on some off-network. It's well crap. While it is not as bad as the B-movies they show on the Sci-fi network on Saturdays but still a fairly large pile of crap. The acting is passable. The plot and writing are fairly sub-standard and the pacing is entirely too slow. Every minute of the movie feels like the part of the movie where they're wrapping things up before the credits - not the peak of the movie, the denouement. Also, large portions of the cast look way to old for the age range they're playing. The whole thing is predictable, boring and not worthy of being watched. Save your time. It's not even worth the time it takes to watch it for free. | 0neg
|
This movie is a modest effort by Spike Lee. He is capable of much more than this movie.Get on the Bus while apparenly anti racist, does nothing but berate whites and degrade the black status quo. The plot of this movie is about a group of black men who travel on a bus to Louis Farrakhan's million man march. The bus has every type of person you could imagine:gay, muslim, gangbanger and the Uncle Tom(He is thrown off the bus though). There was one only white person on the bus. He was accused of being a racist the minute he got on the bus to drive. Despite him being a jew and the fact that he explained is situation he ended up being a racist and leaving the bus.I hate to say it but films like this need to realize their own hipocracy and rienforcation of steryotypes. This should not be seen as a triumph but a sad dissapointment. You may think I am a racist for writing this but I mean well. Better luck next time Spike. | 0neg
|
Another FINE effort by America's most UNDERrated filmmaker. His knowledge on the subject of racism is STAGGERING, and IMPRESSES me on more than one level. Accusations that Lee is really just a devious little racist, a poisonous dwarf who opportunistically exploits Hollywood's Affirmative Action system to make movies of inferior quality is utter NONSENSE, mere Right-Wing propaganda. The very notion that Lee would resort to misusing the current climate of political correctness in America in order to produce hate-filled anti-white movies is simply FALSE and malicious.<br /><br />Some of Lee's detractors even go so far as to suggest that GOTB glorifies African-Americans, while putting down other races: obviously, another FALSEHOOD disseminated by people who are AGAINST peaceful co-existence between different races in America and elsewhere.<br /><br />My favourite scene in the movie is a lengthy dialogue early on between the rich black Republican and the others in the bus. The views presented by that man are simply WRONG - all across the board. 100% UNTRUE. He LACKS education, unlike the brilliantly INFORMED guys who quite DESERVEDLY throw him off the bus.<br /><br />TERRIFIC performances, and an INTELLIGENT script make for a viewing experience that has been RARELY rivaled by any political movies made since.<br /><br />I also want to point out the incessant LIES that the Million-Man March had only 80,000 people taking part in it!<br /><br />(And now all you have to do is take the antonyms of all the words written in capital letters...)<br /><br />So what message does Lee send here? If someone doesn't agree with your political views, you simply apply violence and throw him off the bus. I thought the movie said "get ON the bus"...?<br /><br />Apparently, Mr.Lee is for bus-segregation after all, i.e. is no different than those KKK lunatics before him: the bus is only for those blacks who are in line with the Democratic Party's line of thinking. So much for "freeing the slaves"...<br /><br />The end-credits: "This movie was entirely financed by black people." And distributed and marketed by a major Hollywood studio run by Jews and whites whom Farrakhan despises... | 0neg
|
I just have to add, in case anyone actually reads this and hasn't completely gotten the point yet. These other reviewers aren't joking around, this really IS the worst colour movie you're likely to ever see. When the movie started I couldn't believe something like this actually made it out for the world to see.<br /><br />They're not just saying it when they said it looks like a home movie. It really does. Like the "director" took the family hi8 camcorder (before DV cameras and computer non-linear editing), no other equipment (lights, sound gear, etc), grabbed some decent-looking acting students, and went out to shoot a movie. No script, just making it up as he went along.<br /><br />When I watched it, it was on my mono TV, so I only have one channel of audio (left of right speaker). At first I thought I'd hooked it up wrong. The movie was silent until someone spoke a couple of minutes in. I got up and switched over to the other channel and suddenly I could hear music and sound effects but then couldn't hear the dialog. They recorded the sound on different bloody channels! I mean, there's movies that can be funny to watch, so bad they're good, kind of thing. I'm not sure this is one of those. I mean, I'll admit to being a bit of a budding film maker. And seeing bad movies just makes you want to go out there and PROVE you can do it better, you know. But watching this just made me feel sorry for whoever made it.<br /><br />As bad as they were, the actors are the only good thing about this. I thought the chick was hot and was disappointed in the brevity of her bath scene. A bit of T and A from her would have raised the score from nothing to maybe a 3 or 4. But alas, no. If you want to make a movie but it's turning out crap, throw in some gratuitous nudity. Worked for Roger Corman. | 0neg
|
I'll start by apologizing to filmmakers everywhere for using the terms "filmmaker", "film", or "movie" in connection with this, but "criminal" and "crime against humanity" seem a bit harsh.<br /><br />The writing: pathetic.<br /><br />The directing: pathetic.<br /><br />The acting: pathetic.<br /><br />The cinematography: too inept for words.<br /><br />The technical skills used to assemble this atrocity: NONE WHATSOEVER.<br /><br />This lump of waste could hardly be called cinema. The majority of family home movies come closer to earning that distinction than Revenge Quest. No, this is just a 10 car pile-up caught on video.<br /><br />We'll skip the plot in this review, because there are far too many holes to be covered at once. Let's just say that it stinks worse than the rest of this movie. To call the acting one-dimensional would be giving them credit. What little there is, is atrocious to begin with, and made much worse by the terrible video and editing.<br /><br />The worst part of this atrocity, though, apart from the plot, would have to be the effects... or rather the disturbing lack thereof. There are no blanks in the guns, no flashpots, and what few sound effects existed were either stock "gun" sounds, or they were generated by mouth (yeah, you read that right). The filmmaker actually had the audacity to record a "shh" sound for the elevator doors; I guess he felt it made them sound more futuristic. This is supposed to be set in the year 2031, after all. That doesn't explain the sounds he created by mouth for the fist-fight scenes, however.<br /><br />If it wasn't bad enough that the sound quality is terrible (he just used the microphone that was mounted on the video camera, and it shows), the use of stock gun sounds was almost worse than not using any sounds at all. The sound effects stand out from the rest of the soundtrack like a drunken yak in a herd of sheep, and they're just as clumsy. Picture this: The bad guy enters an office building searching for his prey. A lady starts to run in fear. He raises his gun (an uzi), and shakes it. We hear a sound that is clearly not an uzi. The woman runs away from camera, and suddenly a single blood pack (only 1) explodes on her back (looked like she was hit by a paintball), and she falls flat on her face.<br /><br />Bear in mind that my description does far too much justice to the ineptitude of the actual sequence.<br /><br />In another sequence, one which almost- but not quite- makes the movie funny enough to watch, takes place in a stairwell. The bad guy chases the good guy and the lady he's protecting down the stairs, shaking his plastic uzi all the way. You may wish to duck; there are badly timed sound effects flying all over the place.<br /><br />I supposed Alan DeHerrera can't be locked away for conceiving of this train wreck, but he did follow through all the way to editing and releasing it. If there's any justice, there's bound to be some karma out there with his name on it.<br /><br />Should you decide to watch this lump of industrial waste- and I would strongly advise against it- be sure to watch for the entire scenes lifted nearly verbatim from Bladerunner, and the AM radio that doubles as a walkie-talkie. Try not to focus too hard on the plot; it will only hurt you more if you do.<br /><br />0 stars of 10. And that's being generous. | 0neg
|
If I were to create a movie thermometer, this movie would be absolute zero. Out of ten stars, I would rate it as follows:<br /><br />Plot: zero stars Video quality: zero stars Sound Quality: zero stars Acting: zero stars<br /><br />It is as though high school students got together one afternoon with a camera, made up a plot and shot a movie. It is so lacking in any artistic value that I'd rather watch kids walking around a high school than watch this movie.<br /><br />HOWEVER, something is to be said for the abysymal depths. The "shootout" in the staircase is one of the most train-wreck funny scenes ever. First of all, the combatants simply wave plastic guns at each other, jerking their arms back and forth to simulate recoil. The pair actually "duck" each other's non-existent bullets. No squibs, no sparks, no blanks, just waving spraypainted squirtguns around. If you want to see two grown men play "actor", give it a spin someday... after you have cleaned the fridge, combed the carpet, polished all of the doorknobs, raked the gravel, straightened the books on the shelf, etc. | 0neg
|
Elephants Dream was supposed to be the flagship project of the open source community. And while it was a very interesting idea in concept, in reality it has failed miserably.<br /><br />The film is beautifully rendered, which is probably the only redeeming factor. A huge problem with them, however, is the vast overruse of light bloom. It's horrible, although I guess it helps give the film a dreamlike quality.<br /><br />One thing to note is the terrible voice acting. While Proog's voice actor is at least semi-competent, Emo's voice actor is HORRIBLE. I guess when you have a budget that basically amounts to zero, you can't afford to hire real voice actors. To me it seems like they hired one of the animators to do his voice.<br /><br />As a whole, the movie doesn't really go anywhere. To me it seems like it's more of a "look what we can do" kind of movie instead of a real film. The plot goes nowhere and fails at really showing any interesting point. The whole movie feels like it was made as an excuse to make interesting looking areas.<br /><br />Overall, it may be worth a quick download from the official site, but don't expect anything except pretty graphics. | 0neg
|
Well, I was excited at first to download an animated open source movie, only to be ruined by a demo reel. The animation is excellent, the lip syncing is awful, and you keep watching the movie hoping to understand what's going on, only to realize nothing is going on. You feel no emotion for the characters, only pity for the creators for wasting their time. I have seen short films with twice the emotion in half the time! This could of been an excellent short film, if they had just taken the time to hire a real director. I'm sure everyone over at Blender is excited to showcase their software and its rendering capabilities, but sorry guys-story telling is what makes a movie. | 0neg
|
As said before, the visual effects are stunning. They're breathtaking. I personally use Blender and graphics like that are not easy AT ALL. But that's all this movie is. Not only is the plot confusing, but the overall conflict is not clear. For example, in the first scene, Proog and Emo are trying to run away from who knows what. The conflict seems to be between man and nature here. Later, when they enter the room of the bottomless pit, Proog explains that "one step out of place and (you're dead)". Here, there's a more precise conflict between the careless man and nature. As the movie progresses, it's clear that a conflict exists between man and nature. But suddenly, a conflict exists between man and man when Proog, out of nowhere, murders Emo. Proog immediately changes from being a caring guardian looking after a lost child to being a "sick man". He betrays us. Not only is this depressing, but we don't care because the conflict between the character's thoughts and actions is not developed. It's not a story about someone, through struggle, emerging stronger. It's depressing and has not point because there's no great truth about the human soul or about the world brought to light like a great drama does. In my opinion, the movie is severely underdeveloped in all aspects. However, the graphics are stunning, but a movie is so much more than mere eye candy. There's no truth, no struggle and a bad surprise ending. In conclusion, an underdeveloped movie without a point. ...but the graphics are good. | 0neg
|
This was thought to be the flagship work of the open source community, something that would stand up and scream at the worlds media to take notice as we're not stuck in the marketing trap with our options in producing fine work with open source tools. After the basic version download ( die hard fan here on a dial-up modem ) eventually got here I hit my first snag. Media Player, Mplayer Classic & winamp failed to open it on my xp box, and then Totem, xine & kaffeine failed to open it on my suse server. Mplayer managed to run it flawlessly. Going to be hard to spread the word about it if normal users cant even open it...<br /><br />The Film. Beautiful soundtrack, superb lighting, masterful camera work and flawless texturing. Everything looked real. And then the two main characters moved.... and spoke... And the movie died for me. Everything apart from the lip syncing and the actual animation of the two main characters ( except for Proog in the dancing scene ) looked fluid and totally alive. The two main characters were animated so poorly that at times i was wondering if there are any games on the market at the moment with cut-scenes that entail less realism than this.<br /><br />Any frame in the movie is fantastic.. as a frame, and the thing is great if neither actors are moving. I'm so glad i haven't actually recommended this to anyone. I'd ruin my reputation.<br /><br />Oh, and final fantasy had a more followable and cunningly devised plot.<br /><br />this movie would get 10 stars if it wasn't for the tragedy that sits right there on the screen. | 0neg
|
Scary Movie 3 (2003) was a bad idea to begin with. The last film was a mediocre effort. Put it next to this load, it's a comedy classic. Whilst part two was filled with a lot of dated humor and cheap shots, at least it was funny. There's nothing funny about forced humor. Jokes, pratfalls and sight gags are supposed to be naturally funny. Hitting the viewer over the head with tired jokes is not cool. The humor in this film was caters to juvenile imbeciles who'll laugh at anything. When they catered to the junior high school crowd, any sense of self respect was tossed out the window. Ring parodies are not funny. I have watched them in comedies since 1998. They're so dated. Michael Jackson jokes are not cool either. What's even worse is making fun of two broken down has been "performers" whose best days were NEVER.<br /><br />The death of American cinema has been a slow one. Films like this are the nails that are being pounded into it's coffin. Whatever happened to real humor? I haven't laughed out loud in a movie theater in a long time. Too many bad movies rot the brain. You want proof? Go to your local mega chain video rental store and see what's on the shelves. This movie is bad. Don't believe the hype. I would rather watch Scary Movie 2 in a continuous loop than to suffer through this poor excuse of a comedy ever again!<br /><br />Definitely not recommended (unless you have a handful of brain cells). | 0neg
|
Scary Movie 3 is such a stinkfest its hard to put it in words. It makes movies like Malibu's Most Wanted look like Oscar material, lets just say that.<br /><br />The original Scary Movie was great fun, one of the better 90s spoof movies, coming from a great team who previously rocked our world with Dont Be A Menace to South Central Whilst Drinking Your Juice in the Hood. But what the hell happened?! After the tragedy that was Scary Movie 2, i thought the cast and crew change would help matters, but its even worse.<br /><br />Within 20mins i'd smiled twice. Not one laugh, the jokes were recycled and originality was obviously no factor. The fact that at this point in writing, the majority of people on this site have voted it 10/10 has made me feel physically ill. When there's great flicks like School of Rock out, which actually have jokes that are *gasp* funny, anyone wasting their money on tripe like this needs their head examined.<br /><br />no stars/**** | 0neg
|
<br /><br />"step aside for hollywood veterans?" (the wayan brothers were 'asked') thats what hollyweird demanded and thats what it got. However, like so many of its recent decisions this one was a stupendous mistake.<br /><br />The director is SO out of touch with todays audience, attempting to bring back physical pratfalls and gags in place of funny dialogue is just a DISASTER. I knew it, the audience knew it and the CAST knew it.<br /><br />What a shame, why did they EVER consider changing directors? Not only that but the two Wayan brothers played as two of four primary characters, without them its just a farce and a sad one.<br /><br />SP<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
Scary Movie 3 isn't as funny as its predecessors but its still has its funny moments. It all begins when roving reporter Cindy Campbell sets out to find a hard news story in the middle of television sweeps. She soon uncovers an outrageous onslaught of globe-threatening developments including alien invaders, killer videotapes, freaky crop circles and much more. Faced with conspiracies of massive proportions, and a crew of very strange people following her around, Cindy must fight to stop evil from taking over the world yet again. The plot is a non-issue here as the first two were pretty much plot less. This time around they focus on Signs, The Ring, Matrix Reloaded and 8 mile as well as many others just not as much as the previously mentioned ones. The first one was {imo} one of the funniest films I have ever seen. The second one wasn't as good but still quite funny. The third one is mildly enjoyable but its nothing special. Let's just say that I didn't mind seeing it once but I probably wouldn't want to see it again. The jokes are either hit or miss and the ones that are funny usually involve Charlie Sheen. The lame ones usually involve Anthony Anderson as he is very overrated. Why he keeps getting cast is unclear because he isn't funny. Anna Faris gives a funny performance and she's also kind of underrated. Simon Rex shows some potential as he actually wasn't so bad. Regina Hall also returns as Brenda and she gives a pretty funny performance. The rest of the cast were pretty much a bunch of cameos. Jenny McCarthy and Pamela Anderson probably had the funniest scene out of all the cameos. Their in the opening sequence spoofing The Ring and that scene turns out to be on of the more enjoyable ones in the film. Denise Richards, Queen Latifah, Camryn Manheim and many others also have cameos. David Zucker directs and while this isn't another Airplane, it's also not another My Boss's Daughter either. Its pointless to really analyze a straight comedy as the main thing that people want to know if its funny or not. Like I said before if you do like it, you probably won't really like it that much. In the end, I found it a bit disappointing as the PG-13 rating kind of weaken it but it can still be enjoyed. Rating 6.3/10 | 0neg
|
Hollywood does it again. Lots of money, no creativity. I'm sure the writers were on something other than oxygen when they wrote this one. Based on the previews, I thought that this would be a funny movie. But if you are not up on the latest stupid pop culture then you'll miss most of the silly humor in this movie. Why waste your time. You can sit on a log doing nothing and have more fun than this movie will provide.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
Well...i was going to wait till this came out on video to see it, and i wish i had, I actually caught scary movie 2 on cable the other day, and it made me yearn for more of the same, what i got was AIRPLANE on CRACK... i mean if you like Airplane or any other Leslie nielsen vehicles, then you'll probably be in heaven, but if your used to the usually WAYANS COMEDY, then you will be dissapointed, there was alot more Eye candy in this one which will keep young hormone raged teenage boys happy, which is probably why it was a box office hit the first week it came out. I enjoyed scary movie 2 ten times more then this fodder, and part one 5 times as much. Odd that the better of the 3 is part 2, but then again i always liked Halloween 2 better then the original as well..maybe its just me. The funniest part of the movie has to be the way the Aliens Say Goodbye. But that wasnt worth the 11 dollars i spent to catch a matinee of this with my fiance. Save yourself cash and catch part 2 again on cable till this is released on Video tape, and then Rent it, dont buy it. | 0neg
|
Never before have the motives of the producers of a motion picture been more transparent. Let's see: FIRST, they get every willing televangelist to hype this film as the greatest thing since sliced white bread. NEXT, they encourage as many fundamentalist Christians as possible to purchase copies of the film so as to recoup its paltry production costs and pump up its advertising budget. And FINALLY, when the film hits the theaters, get as many said Christians as possible to see it yet again, bus them into the multiplexes if necessary, NOT on the merits of the film itself, but because a #1 box office opening will be seen as some sort of profound spiritual victory.<br /><br />But THAT, of course, won't be enough. I imagine that any film critic with the audacity to give "Left Behind" anything short of a glowing review will be deemed "anti-Christian."<br /><br />Of course, this shamelessly manipulative marketing campaign shouldn't surprise anyone. It is, after all, good old fashioned Capitalism at work. What DOES surprise me is how many people have been suckered into the whole "Left Behind" mindset. As someone who tries to balance his spiritual beliefs with some sense of reason and rationality, it leaves me scratching my head. It would appear that there are many, MANY people who actually believe that sometime in the near future a "Rapture" is going to occur, and that millions of people all over the Earth are going to simultaneously vanish INTO THIN AIR. What kind of reality, I wonder, are these people living in? Is this "Rapture" something they actually believe in, or is it something they fervently WANT to believe in? And when they reach the end of their lives and realize this "Rapture" has not occurred, will they be disappointed and disillusioned? Will there still be people 100 years from now insisting that the "Rapture" is imminent?<br /><br />In a way, I almost wish that such an event would occur! What an interesting day that would be! What would be even more interesting is if the Apocalypse were to occur in a more spectacular fashion, not in the anthropological sense the authors of the "Left Behind" series have portrayed, but as more of a Stephen Spielberg production, with boiling clouds, trumpets, angels descending out of the sky, Moon turned to blood, the whole nine yards. Imagine coming to the realization that it was all coming true, just as the evangelists had been warning for years, and that there was something more awesome than just the cold, hard, physical reality we inhabit. Wouldn't THAT be something???<br /><br />Yet in the final analysis, it's that cold, hard, physical reality that I will content myself with. My life is not so meaningless that I need the fear of a "Rapture" and the "End Times" to make sense of it all ... nor do I need Heaven or Hell to bribe or scare me into behaving decently, thank you very much. | 0neg
|
Left Behind is an incredible waste of more than 17 million dollars. The acting is weak and uninspiring, the story even weaker. The audience is asked to believe the totally implausible and many times laughable plot line and given nothing in return for their good faith. Not only is the film poorly acted and scripted it is severely lacking in all the technical areas of filmmaking. The production design does nothing to help the credibility of the action. The effects are wholly unoriginal and flat. The lighting and overall continuity are inexcusably awful; even compared to movies with a tenth of the budget. However none of this will matter in that millions of families will no doubt embrace the film for it's wholesomeness and it's religious leanings; and who can blame them. However it is unfortunate that they will be forced to accept 3rd rate amatuer filmmaking. | 0neg
|
I've read every book to date in the left behind series, and the movie hardly does any of them justice. Sure, I've seen worse movies, but this was incredibly disappointing. This movie would have made a good MST3K episode. The script was a horrible adaptation of the book, and it felt like the actors were reading their lines, instead of actually saying them. The characters were stiff and unlikeable. The effects were cheesy, and looked terribly fake. The ending was awful. First of all, it didn't even go all the way through the first book. Second, it made no sense. If you hadn't read the book, you'd have no idea what was going on. It had to have been the most cheesy, film student-like ending I've ever seen in a movie. I'm upset that I actually paid money for this movie. If by some miracle, it does get wide release, they ought to totally overhaul it and let Hollywood take over. Those two wannabe film producers, and the wannabe director should leave movie making to the professionals. | 0neg
|
I'm not a fan of the Left Behind book series - the books are written at a 6th-grade reading level with a lack of research and understanding of science, technology, and politics. While the books do manage to remain faithful to scripture, their methods of fulfilling prophecy are often ridiculous (an example is their explanation for the Russian/Arab invasion of Israel). Also, the books have an unmistakable preachy tone that will turn off unbelievers rather than bring them to the gospel. Still, I found myself reading these books because of my interest in the events of Revelation. For a similar reason, I watched this film adaptation. I am sad to say that it is a rather mediocre film bordering on poor. The acting is actually rather decent for the most part with occasional bits of poor acting and over-acting. The script is rather bad, though it is hardly unexpected when starting with the novel as a basis. The characters are poorly drawn and underdeveloped. Events feel scattered and disconnected. The dialogue sometimes sounds rushed. At least the book managed to flesh out its hokey conspiracy theory. Here, the viewer is left with an incoherent mess that only makes much sense if one has read the book. The pacing of the film is also very poorly executed with the opening and conclusion seeming extremely rushed, and the middle dragging to an excruciatingly slow trudge that makes it feel padded. The music is schizophrenic. At times, it successfully underscores the mood and sounds fitting for a motion picture. At other moments, it reminds me of sitcom and mini-series music. And still other bits remind me of a poppy MTV soundtrack that just doesn't belong in the film. I can give the film points for the scene of panic on board the plane, but that's it. The other scenes involving the disasters after the Rapture are far from compelling. The film also suffers from the book's preachiness although its message isn't quite as in your face. In all, I found the movie just as disappointing as the series. This is not the film to rally Christians around it. I hope that this film does NOT get any attention at the theaters next year. It would be more unnecessary bad publicity for Christianity. For an example of a compelling, intelligent, well-researched series based on Revelation that presents a realistic and Christian world view without offending the secular reader (who after all should be whom a Christian is trying to reach) read the Christ Clone trilogy by James BeauSeigneur. It's a great read and is a much better choice for unbelievers or believers who appreciate quality. | 0neg
|
I didn't expect much from this film, but oh brother, what a stinker.<br /><br />I found this gem in a giant crate of awful $5 DVD's at Walmart (where else)? As cheap as this disc was, I feel ripped off. The special effects had a high school look to them, the camera work marred by wobbly tripods and sketchy lighting and the acting was a perfect example of the 'Christian School'. One can imagine the long and exhausting 'prayer meetings' by the production company after seeing the rushes come back - the people who bankrolled this thing must have had seriously anti-biblical feelings towards the inept production company that cranked this thing out. Think of their anguish as they saw their $914.86 investment go up in smoke.<br /><br />Someone asked why Christian movies are so bad - perhaps the Xian film-makers need to look at GOOD movies and attempt to copy some of the things that make them so good. Believable stories and characters, less hysterical arm-waving and fanaticism, oh, and a story that appeals to -everyone-, not just true believers. I.e. Stop The Sermon, Save It For Church. Take the Omen or Prophesy series, for example. Excellent films with compelling story lines, great cinematography and intense music. No hysterical arm-waving. No preaching.<br /><br />If this film had a laugh track it would have been MUCH better. | 0neg
|
This movie is maybe one of the most boring movies of 2000 that I have seen! Especially the music fails to create suspense when people suddenly disappear. Also aspects such as martial law are not treated with the necessary seriousness. The story itself has problems: the UN could never take power over the world since the United States alone would not allow it but nations such as China, Russia, Japan, etc. would not either. This would also play against someone trying to take over the world as Nicolae Carpathia does. This reminds me of James Bond movies, only that those have more action! Naturally the movie is made for Christians and only for Christians and they may enjoy it. Since I cannot count myself a Christian I find the whole idea ludicrous. This prophecy furthermore seems to be, if believed to be true, dangerously close to other prophecies by cults for the end of the world. Why fear such a possibility when we can make life as good as possible here on Earth without | 0neg
|
What is it with Americans and their hang-up with religious gobbledy-gook? To think this was a best-selling novel is incredible, but to pull it off as a movie you really need good acting and a script that delivers. In this case, all the good actors have gone to heaven and we're left with Kirk Cameron as a CNN-type journalist(!) trying to discover why a lot of people have simply disappeared. Oh yeah, there's a subplot about an evil world conspiracy and famine, or something. The good news is that this is done so cheaply, and with such inane dialogue, that it has sheer entertainment value in all of its unintended laughs. Not recommended for anyone with a 3-digit IQ. | 0neg
|
If you made the mistake of seeing the movie before reading the book, please don't give up on the series. I bought my first copy of any of the books in May of this year, and already I'm almost finished with book 10. I dare say the movie is a piece of trash that doesn't do the series even a sniff of justice. While "Left Behind: the movie" only vaguely follows the story of the "Left Behind" (the book), the characters aren't even close to accurate.<br /><br />A few examples: Rayford never acts on his feelings for Hattie (he is about to when he's informed of the vanishings); Buck Williams is a blonde haired, magazine writer, not a TV reporter; Chloe is at Stanford, and a lot of the book details Rayford wondering if she 'survived'; Buck and Chloe don't meet until much later, at a meeting in New York, set up by Hattie; Irene and Raymie are never 'in the book,' rather just in Rayford's flashback thoughts; the roads are so jam packed with wrecks following the rapture that Rayford and Hattie have to helicopter back to the suburbs... etc, etc, etc...<br /><br />And that's just from the first movie; they're about to release the third. Please, even if you didn't like the movies, give the book series a chance. | 0neg
|
Surprisingly enough does movie does have some redeeming quality in it when it moves toward its end. For the other part this movie is being a really bad and lame one, with a small budget, insultingly bad written script and everything that goes with it.<br /><br />It's silly that with all the money going around in the Christian circles they never can seem to get sufficient funds to make a decent movie with. I'm not a religious, so I couldn't care less really but film-making does some like a good tool to reach a new audience for churches and getting people more interested and curious in reading the bible for instance. In that regard these movies always seem like a wasted opportunity.<br /><br />The low budget does really hurt the movie and brings it down. It makes the movie laughable to watch with its effects and it just gives the overall movie a campy B-movie like feeling.<br /><br />But what's hurting this movie more is its writing. The stuff that just happens in this movie is just insulting to the intelligence and then I'm not even complaining or talking about the religious aspects of the whole story. The way the movie progresses is just so improbable and the people within this movie do such highly unlikely things that it's being insulting to its viewers.<br /><br />I also hated how the movie was being like a soap opera at times. Seemed to me that they simply had a hard time turning this into a full length movie and they added in some characters and dramatic developments just to fill things up. I just couldn't cared less really at times.<br /><br />Still it needs to be said that the movie gets more solid and steady toward its end, when its story gets more focused on its essence. Still it remains predictable all but it prevented this movie from being a complete wreck to watch and as far as these type of movies are concerned, there are far worser one to watch out there, though I don't think this movie will win over any new souls.<br /><br />4/10 | 0neg
|
I didn't agree with any of the theology in the Left Behind series, but nonetheless I found the books gripping and I read 8 of 12 of them. Undeniably good writing and interesting story. However, I didn't have very high expectations for the movie. There was no way mainstream Hollywood would have taken up a Christian series and produced a big-budget movie. So it was done independently... and it just felt like I was watching a really long TV show. It just didn't FEEL like a movie; it didn't have that movie "experience" to it, if anybody knows what I'm talking about. So the movie suffered because of that, and the low-budget, poor special effects were another detraction for me.<br /><br />On top of that, I feel that Gordon Currie was woefully miscast as Nicolie Carpathia. Reading the book, my impression of NC was that he was supposed to be this charming, dazzling, amazingly handsome guy who spoke English with almost zero trace of an accent. So I imagined somebody like Pierce Brosnan in the role. Instead, they found some Clay Aiken pencil-neck who looks like an employee of the month from Best Buy, and gave him a really bad fake accent. So that lost a few stars for me right there. A movie is just not convincing when the major villain doesn't look or sound the way he's supposed to.<br /><br />The acting was okay, but nothing to write home about. Some of the scenes - like one of the conversion scenes (can't remember which one) - were real seat-squirmers for me. And some of the Christian rock music or whatever it was, was really out of place for some of the scenes, like in the one with Kirk Cameron praying in the bathroom.<br /><br />In short, it wasn't a bad movie, but it just didn't do it for me. Stick to the book, folks, it's much better. | 0neg
|
This is a classic stinker with a big named cast, mostly seniors who were well past their prime and bedtime in this one.<br /><br />This is quite a depressing film when you think about it. Remain on earth, and you will face illness and eventually your demise.<br /><br />Gwen Verndon showed that she could still dance. Too bad the movie didn't concentrate more on that. Maureen Stapleton, looking haggard, still displayed those steps from "Queen of the Star Dust Ballroom," so much more down to earth from 10 years earlier.<br /><br />I only hope that this film doesn't encourage seniors to commit mass suicide on the level of Jim Jones. How can anyone be idiotic enough to like this and say it gets you to think?<br /><br />Why did Don Ameche win an Oscar for this nonsense?<br /><br />If the seniors were doing such a wonderful thing at the end, why was the youngster encouraged to get off the boat? Why did Steve Guttenberg jump ship as well? After all, he had found his lady-love. <br /><br />This would have been a nice film if the seniors had just managed to find their fountain of youth on earth and stay there.<br /><br />Sadly, with the exception of Wilford Brimley, at this writing, Vernon, Gilford, Stapleton, Ameche, Tandy, Cronyn and lord knows who else are all gone. The writers should have taken the screenplay and placed it with this group as well. | 0neg
|
The best thing about camp films in general is that you know what to expect. It's like watching a professional wrestling match or a day time soap opera or a Jerry Springer show: you immediately can follow the skimpy plot, identify the cardboard characters, and watch in satisfaction while all the cliches are being fulfilled. However, at times, the director does something real unexpected. It may be something extraordinarily stupid, or something weird, or something insightful. The director Makinen is up there with the best camp directors, and this is his best movie.<br /><br />In Yon saalistajat, everything seems to come together. There's nothing good about it, but still manages to be a coherent whole. Not once does the movie slow down - the action flows on and punches keep on coming.<br /><br />The weirdest thing is that there's no sense of time: some characters seem to take months doing something while other characters have only spent one hour at a bar. This is partially due to Finnish summer where the sun never sets, so you don't experience the day turning into a night at all.<br /><br />Finally: there is a plot, there, somewhere. You may have to watch the movie three times before you realize it, though. | 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.