text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Sundown - featuring the weakest, dorkiest vampires ever seen, accompanied by one of the most unfitting, pretentious scores ever written - and with Shane the vampire, who's every move and spoken word was so ridiculous that I burst out laughing half the times and rolled my eyes the rest.<br /><br />The vampires don't seem to have any special powers at all - except for strength (sometimes), being able to switch off a lamp with their mind (one time) and... that's it, really. Ever imagine count Dracula worriedly recoiling from a fight 'cause he ran out of bullets? Neither did I. Practically any other movie-Dracula would eat this one for breakfast, skin his followers and use their bones as toothpicks.<br /><br />The main plot of the movie is that a human family of four gets caught up in a vampire gang fight - Dracula's vs. some old geezer's. It could have been some good old B-flick fun, but the overly dramatic music was clearly written by someone who took this movie a bit too seriously, and ends up ruining the remaining part of the movie not already ruined by clay bats, mediocre acting and the laughable screenplay.<br /><br />In the end it's just too silly to be funny. Sure, it has some amusing moments, but they're few, and far apart. | 0neg
|
"Sundown:The Vampire in Retreat" is a rubbish.The acting is terrible,the atmosphere is non-existent and the characters are uninteresting.The only scary thing about this piece of scum is that majority of the IMDb users gave it a 10.This is really horrifying.No gore,no suspense,no violence,nothing.Bruce Cambell("The Evil Dead","Intruder")is completely wasted,the supporting cast is also terrible.Yes,some people may like this picture,especially a mainstream society but hard-core horror fans or gore-hounds won't enjoy this piece of crap.Personally I hate horror comedies,I prefer watching serious horror movies like "Cannibal Holocaust" or "Last House on the Left".In my opinion,a real horror movie is supposed to be scary,excessively bloody and disturbing,without stupid humour,which usually ruins the whole concept.This one isn't scary,isn't gory,isn't even funny as a comedy,so don't waste your precious time. | 0neg
|
This may sound crazy to even the people who remember this show...But I remembered this as being live-action. I don't think I ever saw the cartoon. but movie? maybe. I remember it very clearly. The guy was in a building kinda like a showroom. He even had the red jacket. It was dark out and he turned into a red car and there was this guy on the second level looking down at him. The car/guy spun around and crashed through the big showroom type window and out onto the street. And then proceeded to drive off. That is all I remember. I really hope someone else out there remembers this too. If not, Maybe I'm still crazy. But I'm hoping I'm not. | 0neg
|
Johnathan Frakes is a good actor and, when he's not directing a family film, a fine director. But, he really shouldn't have directed this movie, and the screenplay should've been rejected. The director and writers must understand what the original TV show was really about, as well as who the characters were and how they worked. The original series had many episodes with razor-sharp writing using good dialogue and with situations that American producers would never consider using in children's programming, much less a movie, which made the original series so well received by adults. I mean, the Tracys were college graduates and some of them did even drank alcohol and smoked tobacco! And, there were characters who did get killed, although most were bad guys. If they had written it the way that it was originally done, which isn't dumbing things down with poor dialogue, kindergarten humor, and a weak plot, this Universal/Studio Canal joint venture wouldn't have such bad reviews. <br /><br />This motion picture is almost pure blasphemy. If you've seen the original Supermarionation series, then you'll know what I'm talking about! <br /><br />The first thing that was out of place and annoying were the constant references to Ford Motor Company, even going so far that Lady Penelope was riding around in a disfigured Ford Thunderbird made up to look like FAB-1 instead of using what would've been more appropriate considering Ms. Penelope's station (not to mention being more faithful to the original), a ROLLS-ROYCE FAB-1. She's supposed to be a distinguished member of British society, hence the preference for England's finest make of motorcars in the original series. One other reviewer here indicated that Penelope wouldn't be caught dead in a Ford. He's pretty much right in the context that the idea of her riding in a Ford doesn't work. At least they could have had Penelope ride in a Jaguar made up like FAB 1 since Jaguar is a British car make that is owned by Ford, but NO! They had to use a straight FORD! But the Ford product placement doesn't end there. EVERY single car you may see is a Ford! Even the news flash that is shown on the TV sets in the movie were sponsored by Ford! Ford, Ford, FORD! The predominance of Ford vehicles makes this movie an obvious marketing vehicle for Ford. <br /><br />The original series had a design that was futuristic for the 1960s and still remains ahead of its time even today. But, the futuristic design in the original series worked because there was an effort to make the design look practical and functional. This kind of treatment didn't exist in the movie, where everything is stylized to excess, defeating the sense of functionality and practicality. A lot of things that were done in the design of the movie were done strictly for style, many times with no sense of function to give that style a sense of reason.<br /><br />The original series relied on good acting performances of the voice talent to overcome the limited expressions in the puppets, bringing them to life in the episodes. The brilliant and lively music score by Barry Gray helped even further to connect the audience with the story, the characters, and how everything came together to help achieve the super objective (a little bit of Stanislavski talk). The movie, on the other hand, had some overly grating performances. Anthony Edwards overplayed Brains to a fault, Bill Paxton as Jeff Tracy just didn't work despite decent acting (one of few), there were better choices for the Hood than Ben Kingsley, and many others that I don't care to mention (it would take too long). Quite simply, the puppets were more believable! Second was the overly generic and underwhelming music score by Hans Zimmer, sounding more like a mix between "Days of Thunder" and "Apollo 13." <br /><br />And, of course, the Hood. The Hood in the original series had an ability to communicate with Kyrano through a statue of Kyrano as an outlet for ESP contact. But, that was where his extraordinary capability ended. He's a master of disguise and deception, which allows him to sneak around undetected (for the most part, anyways) to gather information of the Thunderbirds vehicles for his own means. He also uses weapons for his own defense, including pistols, and generally collects information using a film camera, although he tried to steal Thudnerbirds 1 and 2 in the 1960s United Artists release of "Thunderbird 6" (which was the last Thunderbirds show filmed in Supermarionation and was the second Thunderbirds theatrical release). But, while he is a nemesis of International Rescue, the Hood isn't the villain in every Thunderbirds episode and he tends to avoid direct confrontation with International Rescue. In the movie, he's obviously the main villain, but he and his cohorts seem to act more like morons, along with the Hood having extended mind control ability, including the ability to move objects and move himself into flight for brief periods of time. This totally deviates from the Hood as a character in the original series with one that may leave kids laughing and people familiar with the series scratching their heads in confusion or leaving the theater in disgust.<br /><br />There are more criticisms, but the 1000 word limit for IMDb reviews will not allow me to list all of them. So, I will close with the point being made that I didn't enjoy this movie. As a matter of fact, I think it sucks! Having seen the original series and Supermarionation movies (Thunderbirds Are Go, Thunderbird 6), I was hoping for something a lot better than this.<br /><br />The original Supermarionation was a lot more sophisticated and elegant than this live action farce. (And that's saying it nicely.) - Kip Wells | 0neg
|
I've always thought that most huge box-office flops usually have something to recommend them, but after the remake of Around the World in 80 Days and Thunderbirds, I'm beginning to doubt it. For those not familiar, it's based on a puppet show about a family of astronauts who use state of the art rockets, spaceships and subs to rescue people from various disasters (falling bridges, stricken planes, burning buildings, etc) each week. Well, the puppets are gone (replaced by far more lifeless teenagers), and so is the premise - only one ineptly staged rescue and a plot shamelessly ripped off from Spy Kids without any signs of imagination, wit or entertainment. Young Alan Tracey feels left out of all the rescuing we never see the other Traceys do because dad won't let him play with a real rocket until he passes his exams. Grounded on a beautiful tropical island (some punishment!), his chance to shine comes when the rest of the family - a bunch of identikit bleach-blondes who look like a gay neo-Nazi boy band without a single bit of characterisation between them - are stranded in space and he has to have the day by, er, running around the jungle, making a phone call, firing a hose at the inept comedy relief villains and dousing them in gunk for bad measure.<br /><br />The good points are few and far between. One of them is that the film is mostly in focus. The other is they all got to go to the Seychelles, which looks nice.<br /><br />The bad points: where to start? Ben Kingsley's career lowpoint performance? The aforementioned inept comedy relief sidekicks who would disgrace the Children's Film Foundation at its worst? The almost complete lack of action or effects in a $70m sci-fi film? The terrible script, the lifeless direction, the odious moralising? But most of all is the fact that the film is so patronising in every possible way. Forget the life lessons and off the peg sentiment, this is a movie aimed straight at the under-eights by people who know they're making a kid's movie and are constantly talking down to their intended audience, throwing in fifth-rate jokes and routines that would insult most children who had only recently mastered the art of speech. This film could replace being sent to bed early without their dinner as parents' favourite punishment for kids.<br /><br />The biggest flop in British film history (it didn't even cover the cost of prints and marketing), it's just about watchable if only as an object lesson in how NOT to make a summer movie. | 0neg
|
The basic formula for the original series was; take someone, get the audience to like them, then put them into Mortal danger. This formula worked for the 32 episodes made between 1964-68. <br /><br />Now, we jump forward 40 years to 2004.. We are introduced to Alan Tracy, a somewhat less-than-diligent college school kid, with his friend, Fermat, a young know-it-all. They are whisked off by Lady Penelope in her pink Ford Thunderbird to the island paradise where the Tracy Family live, for the school holidays. Almost immediately, they are left in the care of Kyrano and his daughter, Tin-Tin whilst the adults go to rescue John from Thunderbird 5 which has been damaged by a staged accident. This is all part of The Hood's scheme to take over Tracy Island so that he can steal the Thunderbird machines ...<br /><br />
To rob a bank!<br /><br />Yes. The plot IS as limp as that!<br /><br />The dialogue is banal, the acting more wooden than that of the (fibreglass) puppets, the effects, anything but special and Hans Zimmer's score
? What little there was of Barry Gray's glorious theme shone through Zimmer's lackluster orchestration. The rest of the score was eminently forgettable. In fact, part of the score was broadcast the following week on the radio and didn't recognise it! I didn't even bother to stay to witness Busted's mediocre efforts with the end titles<br /><br />To be fair, Ron Cook worked quite well as Parker, he and Sophia Myles as Penelope seemed wasted. With the right material, they could have been show stoppers. The CGI work was what I would have called leading edge - 5 years ago.<br /><br />The Dynamics of the main craft were just wrong; The original series models at least moved as if they had mass<br /><br />Another sore point is that the whole production seemed to be one long set of product placements, from every vehicle being built by Ford to the entire content of the Tracy Freezer being produced by Ben & Jerry's.<br /><br />My son (9) enjoyed the film but this cross between Spy Kids and 'Clockstoppers', aimed squarely at his age group, added nothing to the Thunderbirds legend. When Star Trek hit the big screen in 1979 with 'The Motion Picture', a whole new lease of life was breathed into the franchise which then continued for another 20 years or so. With this film, Frakes has missed a golden opportunity to do the same with the Thunderbirds franchise.<br /><br />I predict that this film, like 'The Avengers' and 'the Saint' before it, will sink into obscurity within 6 months, leaving the original series to its 'classic' status. | 0neg
|
'Thunderbirds' was an immensely popular Sixties show that has transcended the years and generations to the point it is still as popular now, with both adults and children alike, as it was in its heyday. So, one would deduce the chance to produce a live-action feature film with a million pound Hollywood budget was an excellent opportunity to revive the series as has been done with 'Spider-Man' and 'The X-Men'. But a terrible storyline and bland acting obliterated this opportunity and it was soon apparent all that was destined for this film was a trip to the bargain bin of the kiddies' section.<br /><br />Instead of a film focusing on the five Tracey sons, their father and trusty geek Brain striving to rescue people and protect the world from villains, our hero in this drudge is a malcontent and bratty thirteen-year-old Alan Tracey, fourteen-year-old Tin-tin and ten-year-old brain-box Fermat, son of Brains (yes, Brains' son despite this being a man who could surely never score a woman if he tried; maybe he grew the kid in a petri dish). As one can tell from a run-through of our three lead characters, this 2004 remake 'Thunderbirds' was clearly aimed at entertaining only children under twelve instead of trying to appeal to a broad age-range as those involved in the much superior revival of 'Spider-Man' did. The plot itself was so bland with clunky, awkward dialogue and weak jokes that probably wouldn't amuse brighter pre-teens. The scriptwriter seemed more interested in ripping off 'Spy Kids' (which was at least quirky and original) instead of remaking the show people know and love.<br /><br />Although Sophia Myles and Ron Cook were excellent as Miss Penelope and Parker, they only had about three lines between them so their presence was barely felt. Bill Paxton's Jeff Tracey was just boring and there was only the slightest of mention of the other four Tracey boys while Anthony Edwards and Ben Kingsley, as Brains and the Hood respectively, were just embarrassing. The Hood, in particular, is not at all threatening or sinister and instead comes across as a campy, two-bit stereotypical villain as limp as a piece of rotting lettuce.<br /><br />Brady Corbet, who plays Alan Tracey, may well be a good young actor but it was hard to see that in a film where he plays a whinging brat who just grates and the same goes for Vanessa Anne Hutchinson as Tin-tin since the most she gets to do is look pretty and be all for 'Girl Power'. Ironically, it is young Soren Fulton's Fermat who is the only interesting character of the film as Fulton delivers a natural and relaxed performance.<br /><br />'Thunderbirds' the series will be forever remembered as an excellent show that proves puppets can give solid performances! 'Thunderbirds' the film will be forgotten by most and remembered by a few as one big flop. | 0neg
|
Thunderbirds (2004) <br /><br />Director: Jonathan Frakes <br /><br />Starring: Bill Paxton, Ben Kingsley, Brady Corbet <br /><br />5
4
3
2
1! Thunderbirds are GO! <br /><br />And so began Thunderbirds, a childhood favorite of mine. When I heard that they were going to make a Thunderbirds movie, I was ecstatic. I couldn't wait to see Thunderbird 2 roar in to save people, while Thunderbird 4 would dive deep into the
you get the idea. I just couldn't wait. Then came August 2004, when the movie was finally released. Critics panned it, but I still wanted to go. After all, as long as the heart was in the same place, that was all that mattered to me. So I sat down in the theater, the only teenager in a crowd of 50
everyone else was over thirty and under ten. Quite possibly the most awkward theater experience that I have ever had
<br /><br />The movie (which is intended to be a prequel) focuses on Alan Tracy (Brady Corbet), the youngest of the Tracy family. He spends his days wishing that he could be rescuing people like the rest of his family, but he's too young. One day, he finally gets his chance when The Hood (Ben Kingsley) traps the rest of his family up on Thunderbird 5 (the space station). This involves him having to outsmart The Hood's henchmen and rescue his family in time before The Hood can steal all of the money from the Bank of England.<br /><br />Trust me, the plot sounds like a regular episode of Thunderbirds when you read it on paper. Once it gets put on to film
what a mess we have on our hands. First off, the film was intended for children, much like the original show was. However, Gerry Anderson treated us like adults, and gave us plots that were fairly advanced for children's programming. This on the other hand, dumbs down the plot as it tries to make itself a ripoff of the Spy Kids franchise. The final product is a movie that tries to appeal to fans of the Thunderbirds series and children, while missing both entirely. Lame jokes, cartoonish sounds, and stupid antics that no one really finds amusing are all over this movie, and I'm sure that Jonathan Frakes is wishing he'd never directed this.<br /><br />Over all, everyone gave a solid performance, considering the script that they were all given. Ben Kingsley was exceptional as The Hood, playing the part extremely well. My only complaint about the characters is about The Hood's henchmen, who are reduced to leftovers from old Looney Tunes cartoons, bumbling about as, amazingly enough, the kids take them on with ease.<br /><br />What's odd about this movie is that while I was watching the movie, I had fun. But once the lights went up, I realized that the movie was fairly bad, I was $8 lighter, and two hours of my time were now gone. A guilty pleasure? Perhaps. Nonetheless, Thunderbirds is a forgettable mess. Instead of a big "go", I'm going to have to recommend that you stay away from this movie. If the rest of movie could have been like the first ten minutes of it, it would have been an incredible film worthy of the Thunderbirds name. However, we get a movie that only die-hard Thunderbirds fans (if you'd like to watch your childhood torn to pieces) or the extremely bored should bother with.<br /><br />My rating for Thunderbirds is 1 ½ stars. | 0neg
|
This is a truly awful film. What they have done is taken a TV show, which was never aimed at young children & given it the George Lucas treatment (i.e. ruined it by kiddifying it to appeal to the younger audience).<br /><br />OK so the Thunderbirds TV show wasn't exactly the most cerebral of shows, in fact it was pretty formulaic, but it was always enjoyable to watch (especially when the models got blown up) and the voice cast wasn't too bad.<br /><br />This suffers from bad casting & bad acting (with the notable exceptions of Sophia Myles as Lady Penelope & Ron Cook as Parker, who seem to be the only cast members to have a clue about how their characters should be played) & after this travesty I wouldn't let Frakes direct traffic.<br /><br />The whole point of Thunderbirds was that it was about the whole Tracy family & how they worked as a team, preventing disasters or coming to the rescue of those involved in disasters.<br /><br />Avoid this rubbish like the plague.<br /><br />I only give it 1 out of 10 because a zero rating is not supported. | 0neg
|
OK..this movie could have been soooo good! All generations have been exposed to Thunderbirds and have come to love it and this film had some of the features one would look for in a good thunderbirds movie. The craft themselves and Tracey Island were realistically transferred to the big screen, whilst still keeping to the designs we fell in love with. Sophia Miles was, simply, fantastic, as Lady P and Bill Paxton, whilst not exactly who I envisaged Jeff Tracey being, was solid enough...but then the adults were taken out of the equation and we were asked to believe 8 year olds could fly 200 tonne machines.<br /><br />It's not so much the fact that the movie was centred around the children that made me feel like Jonathon Frakes was slapping me with a wet fish and laughing at my hard earned money spent on the film, it was the fact that Alan Tracey was so obnoxious in the film and that he seemed to be as able to fly the machines as well as his brothers...who were at least 19/20. Seriously, these are some pretty damn simple machines to use if this is the case.<br /><br />The film didn't seem to know whether it wanted to be serious or farcical. It tried to pay homage whilst satirising and it just generally fell flat on its face. 3/10 (2 for the machines, 1 for Lady P) | 0neg
|
I grew up (b. 1965) watching and loving the Thunderbirds. All my mates at school watched. We played "Thunderbirds" before school, during lunch and after school. We all wanted to be Virgil or Scott. No one wanted to be Alan. Counting down from 5 became an art form. I took my children to see the movie hoping they would get a glimpse of what I loved as a child. How bitterly disappointing. The only high point was the snappy theme tune. Not that it could compare with the original score of the Thunderbirds. Thankfully early Saturday mornings one television channel still plays reruns of the series Gerry Anderson and his wife created. Jonatha Frakes should hand in his directors chair, his version was completely hopeless. A waste of film. Utter rubbish. A CGI remake may be acceptable but replacing marionettes with Homo sapiens subsp. sapiens was a huge error of judgment. | 0neg
|
The most embarrassing moment in this film is when Brady Corbet says 'You've blossomed', near the end the film. I practically died. I'm still not really sure why the screenwriters put that line in there. Was it supposed to create romance? Because it nearly made me sick. <br /><br />The rest of the script was almost as bad.<br /><br />I've never liked the original Thunderbirds, but a Thunderbirds movie had the potential to do so much. This movie doesn't. If it didn't have the big draw card of the Thunderbirds brand, it would have been shafted straight to TV, or canned in the post-production. Maybe even before. <br /><br />Like I said, the best thing about the movie is when the credits roll up and they play Busted's song 'Thunderbirds are go'. I can't believe I wasted $7 watching this through pay-per-view. | 0neg
|
ba ba ba boring...... this is next to battlefield earth in science fiction slumberness. genie francis (aka general hospital's laura) has a small role as a reporter and that in itself should tell you that this movie must be bad.... there is ben kingsley (an academy award winning actor) in this stinker and a few others decent actors. You have to wonder what possessed them to decide to do this awful movie. The music dramatically goes up and down like it's a major dramatic story. Even if you pay attention the plot is impossible to follow. The effects are mediocre as well and seem really dated. All of the actors speak in a monotone voice and have no realism to their dialogue. I could go on and on on how this is a bad movie. At least with Battlefield Earth it's so bad it's funny but this is just b o r i n g. Avoid unless you want to be lulled to sleep. | 0neg
|
I still haven't gotten to see all of this; it's running on cable right now, and I seem to keep coming in on the middle of it. My main reason for being interested in it is that I'm a Bill Paxton fan; he's a pretty good actor, and has turned in consistently good work over the course of his career.<br /><br />The other thing is that, while never really a fan of the old series, I kinda liked Thunderbirds for the ships and effect work. Derek Meddings was quite possibly the best in the business during the sixties and seventies, and his designs for the International Rescue craft are wonderful. The current team has done a fine job of translating his work to the big screen.<br /><br />BUT...<br /><br />This is one lame story. The kids are asked to drive it, and while they do an okay job, it's hard to suspend your disbelief, especially when you have Brains' eight-year-old son flying T2, an enormous multi-ton transport with all the aerodynamics of a Buick. Everywhere you look, you see a Ford logo. Product placement is way over the top here, and it's annoying. Ben Kingsley does an good job as The Hood, but he can only do so much with a one-dimensional role. If you can accept the film on its very slim merits, Thunderbirds is a fun, enjoyable ride. Just don't look too closely at the machinery that drives it.<br /><br />ADDENDUM: I finally got to see all of this, and it's worse than I thought. The acting is fairly uniformly poor, and while the effects are fairly good, the story on multiple viewings has gotten cheesier. The overdone product placement for Ford is annoying, and the kids as central characters grate on my remaining nerves. As with The Avengers, if you ignore the source material, it's bearable. But not very. Watch the original show, and you'll see what I mean.<br /><br />And a word of advice to Jon Frakes. Take a refresher course at the Director's Guild. You can do better than this, old friend.<br /><br />Another footnote...<br /><br />I saw this again. Last night. On Telemundo. Dubbed in Spanish, with cheesy comedy sound effects. And yes, I came in roughly in the middle, with Ben, Ron and Sophia in their fight scene on Tracy Island. <br /><br />I didn't think it was possible for an already lame movie to be worse, but it was. It was embarrassingly bad. <br /><br />If this had been done straight, no kids-to-the-rescue, no tongue-in-cheek jokes, it might have worked. As it is, it's just another beloved childhood joy that's been ruined. | 0neg
|
wow i payed £3.50 to go see this movie at the cinema. Cant believe i wasted my time. The acting is cringe worthy at best and the special effects are crude. Probarly the worst script in history some extremely embarrassing quotes i have ever heard in my life. I swear to god 'swept away' is better than this. Madonna should of won and Oscar compared to these guys. An hour and a half of my life i want back. Honestly people don't see this, even toddler would find this movie an insult to their intelligence. i found this movie very strange in the fact that it was hard to tell who is more wooden, theses guys here of the actual puppets. pleas guys don't waste your time on this movie you will live to regret it. | 0neg
|
The original Thunderbirds earned a place in TV history. It was, and still is, much beloved - indeed, the entire first 10 minutes of the Wallace and Gromit movie (the Wererabbit) is a direct lift of Thunderbirds, down to a direct replay of the original Thunderbird 2 launching sequence (if you don't believe me, get the movie, and then get a copy of the original episode where Thunderbird 2 is launched).<br /><br />This movie was a crass attempt at making a kids' movie - when the original was loved and enjoyed by kids and adults alike! In the original, the Thunderbirds spent all of their time rescuing people who were often trapped when Mother Nature or Technology went horrible wrong (yes, there was also the occasional criminal act). The Thunderbirds put their own lives and resources at risk for no reward - the very essence of heroism and selflessness. There was little physical violence. The Thunderbirds challenged the imagination to a degree - how many of us would dream of someday building a Thunderbird 2? And don't underestimate the power of entertainment to do this - many Japanese attribute their fascination with humanoid robots to the old Astroboy cartoon.<br /><br />But this movie was a poor re-image of the original. This movie came across as a meld between Thunderbirds and Loony Tunes - I mean, we have Anthony Edwards as Brain imitating Porky Pig's stuttering????? Much of the action consists of Kung Fu/Power Rangers type fighting. Indeed, there were funny sound effects when someone got nailed on the head with a frying pan. The tech that fired our imagination was absent - instead we have these kids running around, using a plot device that was NEVER in the original series (having the entire team take off at once, leaving the base occupied by the kids and Brain). Then there was a dose of "Use the Force Luke" mysticism thrown in when TinTin would levitate something or another, coupled with the The Hood using aerodynamics that looked like they were lifted from "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". About the only thing missing was for The Hood to go "TinTin, I am your Uncle" with a breath mask voice. The heart that made Thunderbirds unique was GONE.<br /><br />The only bright point was Ron Cook's portrayal of Parker - he caught it perfectly. But the actress playing Lady Penelope came across as a child - HUH???? <br /><br />And this is why we hate this movie. When someone puts out something that was popular to a fan base, and expects the fans to shell out money to watch, and then delivers something than wasn't even close to what the fans expect - well, I am sorry, that is just plain WRONG! OK, so if they were making a kids' movie - fine - next time distribute it straight to video, where many of these belong. But don't package something up in a familiar wrapper and change the innards. | 0neg
|
I really didn't like this film. The plot was very predictable. Typical American plot, I'm sorry. Guy gets the girl kind of thing at the end. And London has a Monorail? Bank of London??? Bank of England is what it really is!! - I did however like the look of Tracy Island and the Thunderbirds themselves. And the Brits were baddies? (apart from Parker and Lady Penelope) What was up with that? Oh and they kept on saying stuff like "Here come 'The Thunderbirds'" - but it was never known as 'The Thunderbirds' in the series, why do that?? I'd like to see this re-made in 20 years with more British cast. I preferred the original series. Sorry! | 0neg
|
To say that Thunderbirds is a horrid, forced, in-your-face, ugly looking, nasty to listen to and painful to watch film wouldn't be saying enough. There are only two reasons I can think of why you'd watch this film: 1; you've seen Thunderbirds when you were young (like I did) and are curious as to what it is like but you will really only be watching to find out how badly they screwed things up. Or, 2; you're seeing it with someone under ten years old.<br /><br />Thunderbirds manages to cock up everything it attempts. The list goes on and on but there are other more subtle, humiliating things that are painfully obvious when you think about it. From the off, Thunderbirds is wrong, wrong, wrong. The whole moral message and 'goal' is set up in an excruciating way: Jeff Tracy (A new low for Bill Paxton) tells his youngest son Alan he's not yet proved himself to be a Thunderbird after Alan randomly and stupidly decided to go down into Tracy Island's bowels to fire up Thunderbird One. The whole film is then a series of events and miss-fires consisting of Alan trying to prove himself whilst his father and other brothers are trapped in space aboard Thunderbird five.<br /><br />The film relies on kid actors to carry the film: A 16 year old Alan Tracy (Corbet), a 16 year old Tin Tin (Hudgens) and a 14 year old Fermat (Fulton) who is Brains' son. To say that watching the 'adventures' they get up to is painful is an understatement. Frequently trying to act and utilise the script whilst combating the evil 'Hood' (Kingsley) in ridiculously unfunny and hammy ways acts as the entertainment for the duration of the film; it only differs when everyone's in a different location. Also, the whole 'mind control' thing was very tiresome and basically dragged the film down as it was overused and offered a way for our heroes to see a weakness in The Hood forced and incidental.<br /><br />I know that most 'film's for kids' these days try to integrate some sort of material for adults but in Thunderbirds it's done in a way that fetishises Lady Penelope. Sophia Myles plays Penelope and I think it's no coincidence she's a little older than the rest of the kids at 24 years old, it's almost too good to be true. Her scenes are often highly charged and carry an erotic push. We see her in the bath, bubbles up to her neck watching TV; in comes her butler and sneaks a peek as she seductively changes channels with her wet, bare and bubble covered foot. Frequent shots of her massive, bright pink high heeled shoes filling the screen during various scenes: This first happens when she is actually tied up with the second happening during a fist fight with another woman! Twinned with this, her bright pink costumes that reveal just enough yet cover just enough are particularly outstanding as is the way she moves and talks with that posh, dominant, English accent; sounding like a commanding mistress (Well, she is LADY Penelope after all and you'd better make sure call her that) The whole thing is laughable but the editing is so quick that the kids won't notice but it sure as hell is there.<br /><br />The actual plot of The Hood doing all that he does just to rob a few banks is very bizarre, the characters that are his bodyguards: a geeky looking woman and hard bodied black man who gets agitated a lot. Are we supposed to be laughing at this? What about the fight scenes? Poorly choreographed stunts and what the hell was with the silly noises? It's utterly, utterly laughable.<br /><br />The list goes on. The way Bill Paxton plays it all so seriously, like he was told they were doing it one way but it was made another, the way Ford motor company have their logo slapped all over the place. News bulletin: sponsored by Ford, the camera even moves to endorse Ford several times when cars are in shot, the way the CGI looks like something out of a computer game video clip it's infuriating. The fact we are told to believe that a 16 year old girl can swim in the freezing Thames, against the current, rescue a downed monorail (monorail over the Thames!?), get back to the hatch and thus; save the day all the time holding her breath. It is absolute bull and the makers know it I don't even know if a 10 year old would swallow it.<br /><br />In short: avoid, avoid, avoid. Thunderbirds is infuriating, unfunny, poorly scripted and even the Rolls Royce was taken out and replaced by a flying car everything that could go wrong, did go wrong. | 0neg
|
This film is just a kids against evil genre. Thunderbirds is just the hook to get people to see it, but are almost incidental in use. The fact that the action takes place on Tracy Island is just a ploy to pull in the public. It was interesting to note what the film makers view of future London will be and how the World all fits together.<br /><br />The best part of this film are some of the lines delivered by Lady Penelope which are highly comical. These provided some light relief for those expecting a rerun of the TV series.<br /><br />Having said that it passes 90 or so minutes in a 'fun' way and so may just be worth watching. | 0neg
|
I was one of those "few Americans" that grew up with all of Gerry Andersen's marvelous creations. Thunderbirds was a great series for the time and would have made a great action/adventure movie if only the writers could have figured out where to target it.<br /><br />I expected it to be a romp, but I did not expect it to aim at such a low age group. Like Lost in Space, this could have been both visually stunning and exciting. It should have focused on more action/adventure and the goal of the original series... saving people in trouble.<br /><br />Instead, it focused on Alan saving the day instead of his brothers (who were cast too young anyway vs. the original). The breakout part was Lady Penelope and Parker. I didn't care too much for the characters in the original, but I was grateful for them in the movie. They stole the show!<br /><br />I always enjoyed Thunderbirds more for the high-tech than the stories, and even that did not get enough screen time as far as I was concerned. I would have enjoyed seeing more of the cool gadgets.<br /><br />But then, I'm just a big kid... ;) | 0neg
|
I was one of those "few Americans" that grew up with all of Gerry Andersen's marvelous creations. Thunderbirds was a great series for the time and would have made a great action/adventure movie if only the writers could have figured out where to target it.<br /><br />I expected it to be a romp, but I did not expect it to aim at such a low age group. Like Lost in Space, this could have been both visually stunning and exciting. It should have focused on more action/adventure and the goal of the original series... saving people in trouble.<br /><br />Instead, it focused on Alan saving the day instead of his brothers (who were cast too young anyway vs. the original). The breakout part was Lady Penelope and Parker. I didn't care too much for the characters in the original, but I was grateful for them in the movie. They stole the show!<br /><br />I always enjoyed Thunderbirds more for the high-tech than the stories, and even that did not get enough screen time as far as I was concerned. I would have enjoyed seeing more of the cool gadgets.<br /><br />But then, I'm just a big kid... ;) | 0neg
|
I am very sorry to say this but "Thunderbirds" does not even come up with a loud pop, never mind any thunder. At one stage I gave serious consideration to walking out of the cinema, I stayed in the forlorn hope that the film might improve. I was to be disappointed, it did not get any better, it got worse if that is at all possible. Had I gone to see the film with the thought that it was going to be a "spoof" I would still have been let down. They had an excellent opportunity to make a great franchise of films here, they have totally wasted that opportunity. Bill Paxton and Sir Ben Kingsley should be embarrassed to have there names attached to this film and Jonathan Frakes well what can I say, he should be embarrassed and ashamed would not be to far from the truth. I saw this film at a pre-release showing, I had been waiting to see it most eagerly, having grown up in the sixties with the original shows. To say I was disappointed would be something of an understatement. One final thing I will say about the film was the puppets in the TV shows were just a bit more wooden than where the actors in the film. | 0neg
|
I just saw this movie (mainly because Brady Corbet is in it), and I must say that I was not pleased. <br /><br />Of course, the computer graphics were amazing, but the story line needed a little touch-up. Also, I think this movie would have done much better with more curses and blood, as well if it were rated PG-13. <br /><br />That would definitely attract more people to see it-->teens. What would also attract more teens (particularly teen girls), would be a large close up of Brady Corbet on the Thunderbirds poster! <br /><br />Even though the movie had it's down points, I still saw it and thought it was okay! | 0neg
|
There's a group of Fox TV executives sitting around a boardroom table wondering what new show to commission. <br /><br />'How about aiming for something like 24 or The West Wing?' says one of them, but they all agree it would be too expensive, and cheap TV is less likely to harm the station if it flops. <br /><br />'Well, how about getting together some great comedy writers and doing a quality sitcom?' offers another and is fired on the spot. 'Don't you know good writers cost lots of money!' the big chief barks. 'That's why we invented reality TV.'<br /><br />'We could do yet another crime drama...' suggests a man in a bland suit. 'I'm listening...' the boss replies, suddenly interested. 'People like CSI, so let's do another copy of that,' Blandman adds.<br /><br />'But there are already far too many CSI clones out there, what can we do to make ours stand out?' a naive junior enquires and is sacked instantly. 'Stand out! If we do that people may be confused! Let's give them more of what they already like!' the big chief screams. <br /><br />'Let's just add more violence and make it really grisly, we are Fox after all,' another suit suggests to a hearty reply of 'now you're getting it', from the big chief. 'We could make them the Deviant Crimes Unit,' he goes on to add, clearly on a roll. <br /><br />'By Jove, he's got it!' the big chief laughs, 'and the victims could be beautiful and vulnerable women who wear very little on screen.' 'Well that would certainly distract people from the average acting and poor scripts,' Blandman points out. <br /><br />'Then it's settled, we just need a name,' the big chief announces. 'We could call it Sex Cops Violence?' <br /><br />'Too literal, how about Killer Instinct
it conveys violence, but sounds a bit like Basic Instinct which had lots of sex.' <br /><br />'Puuurfect', the big chief replies and then they all slap each other on the back and go and cancel Arrested Development. | 0neg
|
Pokemon 3 is little more than three or four episodes of the TV series, strung together without the usual commercials. The story is typical of Pokemon (conflict, fighting, and a resolution where all are happy in the end), and there is nothing original or unusual in the animation. Some of the holes in the plot are filled in (over the closing credits!) without explanation, and everything is just a bit too sweet.<br /><br />Why see it on the big screen? The only reason is to be a part of your child's world. Both of my sons enjoy Pokemon, and by my showing an interest in what they like, we are closer. Seeing a film in a theatre is still different than seeing it on the tube, and my sons enjoy the full movie-going experience. I gave the movie a 4, mostly from my children's point of view.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
This third Pokemon movie is too abstract for younger kids to follow and too repetitious to entertain older kids. The message of the film-- about dealing with loss-- is subverted by the return of the young girl's father during the film's credits. Team Rocket provide some amusement, but they're not really part of the small plot, so they don't appear very often. | 0neg
|
Wow. I don't even really remember that much about this movie, except that it stunk.<br /><br />The plot's basically; a girl's parents neglect her, so this sicko PokeMon pretends to be her dad. Am I the only one disturbed by that? Then, this weirdo PokeMon kidnaps Ash's mom to pretend to be the girl's. I don't care if he was trying to make the girl happy, that's just gross.<br /><br />There was no real plot. The girl was just a whiny brat who wanted things her own way. She played with Unowns, was the "daughter" of Entei and apparently could grow and shrink in age on a whim with the help of her "dad".<br /><br />That's pretty much all I can remember, but I think you can take it as a hint, and not see it. (Or if you do see it, don't expect much.) 1 out of 10.<br /><br />Seriously. If you want a PokeMon movie, rent "PokeMon; the First Movie". | 0neg
|
The rumor is true: girls like COYOTE UGLY more than guys. And the reasons are obvious as soon as the plot is given. Jersey girl goes to New York to become a song writer. And after initial frustration of having no luck, overhears some girls partying about the $300 each they made last night. She gets an audition at the bar they work at and surprise! The place is completely full of "two year old toddlers" bursting at the sight of babes dancing.<br /><br />The story is not bad and some characters are likeable, especially Cammie (the "fashion coordinator" part was cute) and the bouncer but let's face it, the drama was horrible and completely laughable from the beginning. Violet and her father looked far too ridiculous while they were relating throughout the movie. And check out Violet too jamming on that keyboard with the break dancer!<br /><br />For the first time I could think of, how could the production be so terrible? For a brief moment with this movie, Hollywood could stand on its two feet and show a new low without any major public outcry without saying, "You were warned!" Instead, it seems COYOTE UGLY has a purposeful intent on trying to kiss every major rear in the world. Advertising babes in a bar, but showing a paper thin "pursue your dream" story disappointed every male teen you targeted!<br /><br />And finally, the music. There was absolutely no break of music I found in this movie, especially when it was needed (the hospital scene). Every scene felt like some short music video you just wish would stop until the bar opened. But the climax was an ultimate laugher: an '80s like song you would expect Cyndi Lauper to jump on the stage and jam with Violet. Heck, I personally thought Bon Jovi was going to jump out with the long hair and jam too!<br /><br />Other than some really smart camera work with the coyote girls when dancing (especially the wet scene), and a couple cute cliches, COYOTE UGLY is something to be purely embarrassed about. Whether you watched or made it, it looked like nothing but time killing. Or wasting depending on how you look at it. | 0neg
|
I never wanted to see this film, then one day, for a joke I watched it to see how bad it was; my preconceptions were confirmed.<br /><br />For starters I'd like to question the politics of the film. It hides behind of mask of women 'making it big in the city' but the only way that women can make it big is through using their sexuality rather than their intelligence or skills. These women are nothing more the whores. Are slightly less attractive girls not allowed to be successful? This is not the only right wing message of the film, there are hundreds of shots of American flags and huge wads of cash. A fine example of how the only powerful thing in America is capitalism and anything of spiritual, moral or artistic value is not even given a look in of this film. Money is depicted as the only important thing to young people.<br /><br />The manageress of the bar states that she does not allow drug users in her bar, and then she goes on to poor gallons of hard liquor down her own neck and then the necks of her staff and customers. Any one who knows anything about intoxicants will know that liquor can be just as dangerous as heroin and more dangerous than most illegal drugs.<br /><br />And finally, why are scenes in which the lead character is a point of sexual interest to the audience (when she is getting undressed or with her boyfriend) is her father always involved? We watch get her undressed with the camera virtually caressing her legs while she is one the phone to her father. She 'auctions' her father just as she 'auctions' her boyfriend. I find this most strange.<br /><br />In conclusion, this film is immoral, fascistic, degrading to women and frankly, disturbing. But what else do you expect from Jerry Bruckhiemer? | 0neg
|
Let me start off by saying that this doesn't seem or feel like a movie. It seems like just another TV show about popular girls and boys with no real film language top back it up.<br /><br />The camera angles are so straight forward that the story is told the simplest way possible never making the public connect with it. This film takes us to where no movie I've seen has done before: to a realm where the Film Theater becomes a warm medium giving the public every element of interpretation. Too obvious. The large movie screen is only used as an enlarged TV from where we can see every attribute of these women in a larger than life manner.<br /><br />Lately it seems that young directors are compromising the Art of film making for sales. This is very scary. The industry is spoiling the art in movies. We must educate ourselves and our children about what cinematography and its language are really about. Not just sales and entertainment, but a way to communicate feelings, passions and even culture. Not as a launching platform for young divas and jocks. | 0neg
|
This movie is another fine example of what Jerry Bruckheimer, since about 1997, seems to be best at--hyping up a movie a year before its release and not coming through with a quality movie. I'm no film critic, but this movie was as predictable as they come. Every attempt at a joke, every attempt at a touching moment, and the pitiful attempt at a love story, was exactly what I was predicting in my mind. Do yourself a favor and save your money on this one. | 0neg
|
What a disappointment! Piper Perabo is adorable, Tyra Banks is beautiful but pitiful as an actor and the talented and beautiful Maria Bello is wasted! Bello must have been embarrassed by some of the lines! The plot, script and premise is a joke!<br /><br />I'm not against silly movies, I think that Something About Mary is a masterpiece, but Coyote Ugly is a waste of 90 minutes........ | 0neg
|
I was talked into watching this movie by a friend who blubbered on about what a cute story this was.<br /><br />Yuck.<br /><br />I want my two hours back, as I could have done SO many more productive things with my time...like, for instance, twiddling my thumbs. I see nothing redeeming about this film at all, save for the eye-candy aspect of it...<br /><br />3/10 (and that's being generous) | 0neg
|
Coyote Ugly might have been much more effective if the film-makers had made it an R-rated guilty pleasure/exploitation film (with plenty of nudity.) But since the PG-13 rating is what all the studios are wanting these days, we end up with a movie like this: a PG-13 "tease" flick that isn't allowed to go nowhere near as far as the movie should have gone.<br /><br />The script is go generic that it is easy to guess what plot point is going to occur 15 minutes before it actually happens. The acting is adequate, but the characters are so paper-thin that nothing could be done with them. There were also a lot of points where it seemed like I was watching a music-video rather than a movie.<br /><br />The film's only assets are the amazingly beautiful female leads. We get to see them in some extremely tight and pretty revealing outfits.....but only so much could be shown due to the PG-13 constraints. There's plenty of cleavage and toned, heaving bodies doing some well-choreographed dance numbers, but there's no nudity or sex to speak of. Tyra Banks (she keeps getting even more insanely beautiful with age) is also in the movie for a very small amount of time. Sexy newcomer Piper Perabo is also very easy on the eyes (and she has a killer smile) and shows some genuine acting potential.<br /><br />The only people I could see this movie appealing to is pre-pubescent boys who aren't allowed to watch R-rated movies yet. That audience might get a lot out of it from a titillation aspect, but adult audiences will feel annoyed and cheated.<br /><br />Rating: the movie-1 the women-10 | 0neg
|
***SPOILER*** Do not read this, if you think about watching that movie, although it would be a waste of time. (By the way: The plot is so predictable that it does not make any difference if you read this or not anyway)<br /><br />If you are wondering whether to see "Coyote Ugly" or not: don't! It's not worth either the money for the ticket or the VHS / DVD. A typical "Chick-Feel-Good-Flick", one could say. The plot itself is as shallow as it can be, a ridiculous and uncritical version of the American Dream. The young good-looking girl from a small town becoming a big success in New York. The few desperate attempts of giving the movie any depth fail, such as the "tragic" accident of the father, the "difficulties" of Violet's relationship with her boyfriend, and so on. McNally (Director) tries to arouse the audience's pity and sadness put does not have any chance to succeed in this attempt due to the bad script and the shallow acting. Especially Piper Perabo completely fails in convincing one of "Jersey's" fear of singing in front of an audience. The only good (and quite funny thing) about "Coyote Ugly" is John Goodman, who represents the small ray of hope of this movie.<br /><br />I was very astonished, that Jerry Bruckheimer produced this movie. First "Gone In 60 Seconds" and now this... what happened to great movies like "The Rock" and "Con Air"? THAT was true Bruckheimer stuff.<br /><br />If you are looking for a superficial movie with good looking women just to have a relaxed evening, you should better go and see "Charlie's Angels" (it's much more funny, entertaining and self-ironic) instead of this flick.<br /><br />Two thumbs down (3 out of 10). | 0neg
|
If this movie were more about Piper Perabo's character and less about the bar, this might have been halfway decent. Piper's Violet Stanford and Karen Friendly (Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle) both have a virgin kindegarden teacher quality to them that's endearing. Here's hoping she'll find a better movie to be in. | 0neg
|
Just think, it cost a total of $250,000 to make "Clerks". How the hell did they spend $45 Million to make this glorified music video? A practically unknown cast, two or three sets, no special effects that I could see... I know, it must have been spent on that expertly crafted, economical, tension filled screenplay. Shoot, that bar set must have cost a bundle. Anyway, I guess Jerry Bruckheimer wouldn't be caught dead producing anything for less. I'm just surprised he didn't blow up anything.<br /><br />Anyway, it wasn't an awful film I guess. The female leads seemed to have some good chemistry and the soundtrack was OK. IMO It just seems a pity that this rather mediocre project could have been made for $5 Million without any loss to the production, and 6 more $5 million dollar indy films of merit could have been made as well. | 0neg
|
wow! i watched the trailer for this one and though 'nah, this one is not for me'. i watched my husband and our friend's faces during the trailer, and knew this was a 'boy movie'. i mean, hallo! a bunch of chick barmaids that dance - another striptease?<br /><br />then, i started watching it, it didn't look all that bad. so i carried on watching. i watched it right to the end. what an awesome movie. if anything, this is a chick-flick. these girls have attitude. it is really a feel-good movie, and a bit of a love story. really leaves you with a nice feeling.<br /><br />basically, the story of a small-town girl making it big in the city, after going through the usual big-city c**p. there have been a couple of these, it is almost a new urban legend. but it also makes you think of your life, and what you have achieved. well, me anyway. i think it is because the whole working in a bar scenario is very familiar, not just for me, but for many people i know. Don't trust the trailers for this one - it is aimed at bringing the men in. | 0neg
|
In 1454, in France, the sorcerer Alaric de Marnac (Paul Naschy) is decapitated and his mistress Mabille De Lancré (Helga Liné) is tortured to death accused of witchcraft, vampirism and lycanthropy. Before they die, they curse the next generations of their executioners. In the present days (in the 70's), Hugo de Marnac (Paul Naschy) and Sylvia (Betsabé Ruiz) and their friends Maurice Roland (Vic Winner) and his beloved Paula (Cristina Suriani) go to a séance session, where they evoke the spirit of Alaric de Marnac. They decide to travel to the Villas de Sade, a real estate of Hugo's family in the countryside, to seek a monastery with a hidden treasure. They find Alaric's head and the fiend possesses them, bringing Mabille back to life and executing the locals in gore sacrifices. After the death of her father, Elvira (Emma Cohen) recalls that he has the Thor's Hammer amulet hidden in a well; together with Maurice, they try to defeat the demoniac Alaric de Marnac and Mabille.<br /><br />Last weekend I bought a box of horror genre with five DVDs of Paul Naschy per US$ 9.98; despite of having no references, I decided to take the chance. The first DVD with the uncut and restored version "Horror Rises from the Tomb" is a trash B (or C) movie that immediately made me recall Ed Wood. The ridiculous story is disclosed through awful screenplay, direction, performances, cinematography, decoration, special effects and edition and with lots of naked women. The result is simply hilarious and I can guarantee that Ed Wood's style is back. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): Not Available | 0neg
|
The version of this film I saw was titled 'Horror Rises from the Tomb'. The horror in question is a wicked Medieval magician played by Spanish horror legend Paul Naschy looking like he's playing Abanazer in a church hall panto. He rises from his tomb when a stupid descendant (I think he's a descendant, as he's also played by Naschy)returns to his ancestral home and reunites the magician's head and body, which had been separated by by the witchfinders who executed him, in an attempt to stop him, er, rising from the tomb.<br /><br />Obviously, once head and body are back together all hell breaks loose and lots of people die. Like all good magicians, Abanazer here has a lovely assistant. This one's played by another Spanish horror great, the beautiful Helga Line. Like practically every other woman in the film Line periodically gets her kit off. There's a LOT of nudity in this film, and not just female - we even get to see Naschy's paunchy body, which isn't a pretty sight, I can tell you. Most of the film's sex angle is laughably gratuitous. There's one particularly funny scene where Naschy and Line discuss their evil plans and then suddenly decide to both have a grope of the nubile young blonde they've possessed.<br /><br />It's also pretty gory in places - notably a Herschell Gordon Lewis-esquire moment where Line plunges her hands into a man's chest to remove his heart.<br /><br />The best part of the film is the pretty effective zombies who turn up towards the end. They're quickly scared off by a fire though, and don't bother coming back. Which is a shame. The scene where the zombies rise, however, is the film's most ludicrously inept moment. It all happens in long shot, and we haven't really got a clue what's happening until we see some figures shambling on from the distance. There are several rubbish moments like this, thanks largely to poor editing. When a labourer falls under the hypnotic spell of Naschy's head there's a big close up of his face that seems to last forever and serves no purpose whatsoever.<br /><br />All in all, not a great horror film, but entertaining enough. Of course, the version I saw was a dubbed American version that had probably been chopped to pieces. For all I know, the original Spanish version could be a masterpiece... | 0neg
|
This movie starts out with an execution of a practitioner of witchcraft and his mistress. His head is chopped off and buried separately of his body...sounds like "The Thing that wouldn't die" doesn't it? Well it does play out a little like that, but once the body is reunited with the head, all the interesting and gruesome deaths are done and the movie moves very slowly. I mean the movie is only 88 minutes long and I kept thinking "When is it going to end"? The characters in the movie are idiots for the most part and they pretty much deserve to die for being really stupid. The villain is also very bad as he is slow moving and really you wonder how he manages to do anything considering he is afraid of jewelery. The only thing to keep you watching after the head is reattached is the fact that there are so many boobs being flashed that you really begin to lose track. Still I want to see a horror movie, not a soft core porn flick and as a horror movie it is way to slow moving with way to many slow stretches to be even somewhat enjoyable. And don't read the back of the box as it made it out like there were flesh eating zombies attacking the town, there isn't...only a small scene where three or four zombies attack a house and are so easily repelled they are not a factor in the movie at all and their scene is rather pointless. So for the most part I say you should avoid this movie unless you come across it for really cheap. | 0neg
|
Paul Naschy made a great number of horror films. In terms of quality, they tend to range from fairly good to unwatchable trash; and unfortunately, Horror Rises from the Tomb is closer to the latter. The plot is just your average story of a witch, wizard or (as is the case here) warlock, who is put to death - but not before swearing vengeance on those who did it...etc etc. We then get a séance and one thing leads to another, and pretty soon the executed warlock is up to no good again. The plot is slow, painfully boring and the film constantly feels pointless. The characters string out reams of diatribe and it never serves the film in any way whatsoever. Paul Naschy wrote the script, and if you ask me he should stick to acting because the dialogue is trite in the extreme, and only serves to make the film even more boring than it already is. Carlos Aured, who also directed Naschy in Blue Eyes of the Broken Doll and Curse of the Devil provides dull direction here, which likes the dialogue does nothing to help the film. Sometimes crap films like this have a certain charm about them; but Horror Rises from the Tomb doesn't even have that. This is a painfully boring film that has little or nothing in the way of interest. | 0neg
|
It was all over with the slashers around 88 so it was time for the cheesy rip offs of those older movies. The Brain is well done, the script reminded me of Videodrome but then in a more cheesy way as said before. The acting can go through with it. But it's the effects that makes you laugh, the so called Brain is really a turkey and the blood is never shown. The opening sequence is what makes this movie worth watching, the hallucinations are really nicely done and reminded me of Nightmare on Elm Street, remember the telephone coming alive.... Some how you keep watching this flick, waiting what is happening next. It's viewable for all freaks out there cause there isn't any gore in it and as said the blood isn't there neither but there is nudity for the perverts. I have seen worser movies than this one, only wished they had made it bloodier... | 0neg
|
My friends and I rented this for "Bad Movie Night" with high hopes, but The Brain was something of a letdown. The Brain itself is gloriously goofy-looking, but it mostly just sits on its little platform. Who thought that it would be cool that the Brain only gets to munch on three people throughout 94 drawn-out minutes? This movie has a number of things going for it at first, including an Estevez-knockoff lead playing a rebellious genius (we're told that his enormous intellect is misdirected into his elaborate pranks and school stunts, which include putting krazy glue on someone's chair). It also has some great lines, a hilariously out-of-shape and out-of-breath henchman who just barely manages to be everywhere, and, yeah, some chick gets naked. However, the director desperately needs some schooling in the art of pacing. During the last half things just start to drag on and on, with at least 3 or 4 pointless, boring chase scenes making up the middle third of the plot. The scenes inside the PRI complex are especially bad. At least 15 minutes of this movie are people running up and down the same stairwell. I could've fixed the screenplay to this thing in half an hour- more cheese, more gore, more nudity, more Brain action. If you're going to make a bad horror movie, at least give me something cool to look at while my superego shuts down. Maybe the director was trying to really bring the audience into his movie- I started feeling like one of the zombified townsfolk by the end of this crapfest. | 0neg
|
A spoiler.<br /><br />What three words can guarantee you a terrible film? Cheap Canadian Production. THE BRAIN fits those words perfectly. Terrible script, idiotic acting and hilarious special effects make this a must for every BAD movie fan. The horror is hilarious. The post production team looks like it gave up. What makes THE BRAIN admirable is in the second half, it actually tries to be good! Can a bit of ingenuity and consistency save what is already a joke?<br /><br />It's around Christmas time. A mother and daughter are murdered by one of the funniest looking villains ever. The day later, a rebel teen gets into enough trouble that he is sent for a psychiatric analysis.<br /><br />If a cop 's head is chopped off and a stranger with blood on him and a bloody axe told you some kids did it, who would you believe? What begins as funny turns dull and tiring toward the end when THE BRAIN tries to be serious. A child cannot be frightened by the scary moments. THE BRAIN is too funny a concept to try and be gritty. The Psychological Research Institute is larger than major manufacturing plants! Our ugly villain and its cohorts get credit for pulling some of the worst acting I have seen. Viewer discretion advised heavily. | 0neg
|
In the small American town of Meadowvale Dr. Anthony Blake (David Gale, the IMDb listing for this character is wrong it's definitely Dr. Blake not Dr. Blakely) is the director and founder of the famed 'Psychological Research Institute' and also host's a local T.V. programme called 'Independent Thinkers'. He uses this T.V. show to hypnotise the viewers and make them commit acts of violence. Dr. Blake has the help of a large brain with an evil face that uses it's spinal cord as a tail thingy. Usually the brain is just sitting in a tank, eats mice and the odd bad actor, each time it eats someone it gets much bigger. Meanwhile at the local high-school gifted but troublesome teenager Jim Majelewski (Tom Bresnahan) has been caught putting Sodium down the toilets. Jim is sent to Dr. Blake at the PRI for help with his attitude and behavioural problems. While there Dr. Blake hooks Jim up to, well something I'm not actually sure what. This whatever it is, is attached to the brain. At first Jim is able to resist the brain's mind control. The brain feels that Jim is a threat to itself and it's plans. Once out of the PRI Jim starts having bizarre hallucinations and crashes his car. Jim makes it to his waitress girlfriend Janet (Cynthia Preston as Cyndy Preston) but is handed back to Dr. Blake's assistant Verna (George Buza) soon after by Officer Marks (Harry Booker). The brain wants to kill Jim because he is the only one capable of withstanding it's mind control techniques, and with 'Independent Thinkers' going national the brain doesn't want anything or anyone to stop it's evil plan for world domination! Jim quickly realises that the brain is controlling the entire town and he alone must stop the brain, before it takes over the world!<br /><br />Directed by Ed Hunt who calls himself Edward Hunt here, the Brain wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. Don't get me wrong as it certainly isn't great either. The script by Barry Pearson tries a stab at satire with the brain washing and mind control by T.V. storyline. It moves along at a fair pace and isn't too boring. No explanation is given for the existence of the brain at all, it's just there and that's it we have to accept it. The story is a little choppy and never fully explores one single element, there's the T.V. mind control, the brain itself, Jim being hunted by the police & his misbehaviour and various other little bits and pieces here and there including a bizarre revelation regarding Dr. Blake that isn't explained at all. Production wise this film looks cheap, and probably was cheap. The acting isn't great but I've seen worse, and what is David Gale doing in this? In fact this role is similar to Gale's role in Re-Animator (1985) even down to his character's deaths in both films. The brain itself at first sits in a tank and starts to grow whenever it eats someone and by the end it is pretty big. Each stage is just made of rubber. It doesn't look particularly good and isn't scary or creepy, just cheap. There's no blood or gore in it apart from a blink and you'll miss it decapitation. The nudity is provided by Dr. Blake's assistant Vivian (Christine Kossak as Christine Kossack) before she gets eaten. The brain had a certain entertainment value for me but I would think most people would dislike it. Maybe worth a watch if you can see it on T.V. for free. | 0neg
|
Insignificant and low-brained (haha!) 80's horror like there are thirteen in a dozen, yet it can be considered amusing if you watch it in the right state of mind. The special effects are tacky, the acting atrocious and the screenplay seems to miss a couple of essential paragraphs! "The Brain" takes place in a typical quiet-American town setting, where every adolescent works in the same diner and where the cool-kid in high school flushes cherry bombs down the toilet. It is here that a TV-guru named Dr. Blake and his adorable pet-brain begin their quest for nation-wide mind controlling. Under the label of "independent thinkers", a giant cheesy brain sends out waves through television sets and forces innocent viewers to kill! How cool is that? Now, it's up to the Meadowvale teen-rebel to save the world! The funniest thing about the plot is that it never explains where Dr. Blake and his monstrous brain actually come from. There are obvious references towards extraterrestrial life but that's about it. Meh, who needs a background in a movie like this, really? There's not that much bloodshed unfortunately and the "evil" brain looks like an over-sized sock-puppet. The only more or less interesting element for horror buffs is taking a look at the cast and crew who made this movie. Director Ed Hunt and writer Barry Pearson are the same men who made "Bloody Birthday" (guilty pleasure of mine) and "Plague". Both those are much better movies and they wisely decided to resign the film industry. The most familiar face in the cast unquestionably is the great David Gale, whom horror fans will worship forever for his role in Re-Animator. A girl named Christine Kossak provides the nudity-factor and she's obviously a great talent
She has exactly 3 movies on her repertoire of which THIS is her "masterpiece". In her debut, she was credited as 'runaway model' and in "3 men and a baby", her character is referred to as 'one of Jack's girls'. I really wonder how she feels about her career as an actress
| 0neg
|
Another horror flick in which a goof-ball teenager battles a madman and his supernatural sidekick who want to take over?! Yes, but the fact that this one was from Canada gives it a slightly different feel. "The Brain" has troublesome teenager Jim Majelewski getting put into a treatment whose leader turns out to be a cult leader aided by a big ugly "brain". Can Jim stop him? I guess that since our northern neighbor has accomplished all that they have accomplished, they're entitled to make at least one ridiculous horror movie. But still, they'll probably want to be known for having national health care and all.<br /><br />The bad guy had a brain. Why didn't the people who made this movie? | 0neg
|
Using tons of stock footage, not only from Trader Horn but also the first two films in the series (for example the alligator fight was used last time out) this is one of the weakest films in the MGM series. Its a huge let down after the classic Tarzan and His Mate which is possibly the best film in the series.<br /><br />The plot has Jane's cousins coming into the jungle to tell her that she has inherited a fortune if she'll come back to claim it. They are kind of in the bind since the relative that left her the money cut them out of the will.Hiring a great white hunter, who secretly wishes to capture Tarzan and sell him, the pair heads into the jungle where they run into the usual jungle troubles (more so because of the stock footage). After lots of talk Jane decides to go back to civilization and we get long sequences of Tarzan and Jame making kissy face. Finally into the last half hour the plot to capture Tarzan is put in motion and things at last become interesting as plans go awry and things look very grim for all concerned..<br /><br />Painfully dull film is clear evidence of a troubled production. the film seems to have been assembled from several different films with the first half hour playing as an almost exact repeats of the previous film. The middle third shows signs of having to stretch things out and having plot lines that ultimately went nowhere. The last third where Tarzan is captured and the party is put into peril is the point that the film finally comes to life (it also shows signs of the graphic violence that caused much of the need to re-shoot the film). To me its a great wonder how the series managed to continue on from here since this film isn't very good (except at the end).I would be hard pressed to explain it except I would have to say that it was the relationship between Weissmuller and O'Sullivan as Tarzan and Jane which kept people coming back. Its a beautifully acted pairing and really is one of the screens great couples.<br /><br />(I should probably also mention that this is the point that the film became less real and more fantastical with the appearance of the Tarzan tree house.) I really dislike the first hour or so of this film a great deal and find it a great waste of time and energy. If you can come in towards the end I would recommend giving the film a try. Otherwise I would just skip the whole film and move on to the next film in the series. | 0neg
|
This show comes up with interesting locations as fast as the travel channel. It is billed as reality but in actuality it is pure prime time soap opera. It's tries to use exotic locales as a facade to bring people into a phony contest & then proceeds to hook viewers on the contestants soap opera style.<br /><br />It also borrows from an early CBS game show pioneer- Beat The Clock- by inventing situations for its contestants to try & overcome. Then it rewards the winner money. If they can spice it up with a little interaction between the characters, even better. While the game format is in slow motion versus Beat The Clock- the real accomplishment of this series is to escape reality. <br /><br />This show has elements of several types of successful past programs. Reality television, hardly, but if your hooked on the contestants, locale or contest, this is your cup of tea. If your not, this entire series is as I say, drivel dripping with gravy. It is another show hiding behind the reality label which is the trend it started in 2000.<br /><br />It is slick & well produced, so it might last a while yet. After all, so do re-runs of Gilligan's Island, Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies & The Brady Bunch. This just doesn't employ professional actors. The intelligence level is about the same. | 0neg
|
How has this piece of crap stayed on TV this long? It's terrible. It makes me want to shoot someone. It's so fake that it is actually worse than a 1940s sci-fi movie. I'd rather have a stroke than watch this nonsense. I remember watching it when it first came out. I thought, hey this could be interesting, then I found out how absolutely, insanely, ridiculously stupid it really was. It was so bad that I actually took out my pocket knife and stuck my hand to the table.<br /><br />Please people, stop watching this and all other reality shows, they're the trash that is jamming the networks and canceling quality programming that requires some thought to create. | 0neg
|
You do realize that you've been watching the EXACT SAME SHOW for eight years, right? I could understand the initial curiosity of seeing strangers co-exist on an Island, but you'd think that after watching unkempt, stink-ladened heroes run roughshod through the bush with an egg on a spoon for half a decade would be enough to get you to commit to something a little more original (and interesting).<br /><br />And I'm not even speaking of the shows validity which for the record I find questionable. It's just hard to suspend disbelief for "Bushy Bill" eating a rat when the entire crew of producers and camera people are housed in an air conditioned make-shift bio-dome sipping frosty mochcinno's with moxy.<br /><br />What's the appeal here? I don't care about these people or their meandering lives. I just don't get it. But if you DO find yourself being captivated by hairy, unwashed people, I suggest you turn off your TV and just take a trip to your local bus station where you can see people like this in their TRUE habitat. They call them HOMELESS PEOPLE, and free of charge, you can sit back and marvel in their uncanny ability to retrieve various cigarette debris from a plethora of garbage canisters, eventually striking "pay-dirt" and fashioning a homemade Dr. Frankenstein-styled cancer-stick, all the while begging people for change for food when the stink of "Aqua Velva" on their breath is enough to suggest otherwise. And the best part? Much like Survivor, every week one member of the tribe "Leaves" the "Island" when they are unceremoniously sent packing to the local Institution when the frightening unmedicated state of full-blown schizophrenia kicks into gear! Now THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT! | 0neg
|
Written by the excellent McGovern and directed by Frears this film was a slight disappointment. It seemed too short. It spent far too long creating the Hovis atmosphere, and laughing at the Catholic demands. Then very quickly you have the fascist and socialists vying for the family's attention, and the terrible conclusion.<br /><br />Still my wife thought Liam was cute. | 0neg
|
My first question after seeing this film was, "Why is the title LIAM?" If the intent was to tell a story from the boy's perspective, it was not carried out well. Of course there was the formulaic use of camera angles in the boy's scenes, but much of the crucial action took place outside of his field of view. Having a "main" character unable to speak (obviously suggesting the mute, powerless position of a child) makes it difficult to give that character much depth.<br /><br />Melodrama is defined as: "dramatic or other literary work characterized by the use of stereotyped characters, exaggerated emotions and language, simplistic morality, and conflict" LIAM fits this definition to a T. The viewer is hit over the head with the typical stereotypes of the fire and brimstone Catholic Church in the stern school marm and the well-fed priest squeezing money from parishioners. (A stereotype which is becoming very tiresome.) What's more--the Jewish characters are money lenders and factory owners!<br /><br />Much of the film was predictable...Who didn't think that we'd see Theresa scrubbing the toilet after her mother had told her "No daughter of mine will scrub another woman's toilet!" I'm a fan of British realism if it's done well. In my opinion, LIAM is not.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
It is not un-common to see U.S. re-makes of foreign movies that fall flat on their face, but here is the flip side!!! This is an awful re-make of the U.S. movie "Wide Awake" by the British!<br /><br />"Wide Awake" is strange but entertaining and funny! "Liam" on the other hand is just strange. I must give credit to "Liam" for one thing, and that is making it clear that I made the right choice in changing my religion! | 0neg
|
I won't mention any of the plot, because, although it would be highly predictable anyway, the one notable plot twist is given away everywhere, in the movie comments, in the plot summary here, and even in the synopsis on my Netflix envelope. I might have enjoyed it more if I hadn't known that. Maybe. This film has a deceptively good cast, most of whom did creditable acting with the rather limited material at hand, including Donald Sutherland, Lesley Ann Warren, and Tia Carrere and Rosemary Dunsmore in smaller parts. It was impossible to like William McNamara, but that was clearly by design. And there were a couple of quick nude scenes by the callipygian Lenore Zann. But none of this brings the slightest recommendation from me. Don't any of these fine actors actually read these scripts before signing on? | 0neg
|
This is one of the most hateful and cruel movies I've seen in a long time. Sadly I was duped into sticking with it, since Donald Sutherland's presence misleadingly gave it some credibility. [That's the last time that'll happen.]<br /><br />Lesley Ann Warren's character was annoyingly whiny and as stupid as they come. There were smarter characters than hers who were killed in the film. Thats just one of many things in this movie that made me ask, "Where is the justice?"<br /><br />Why is late-night cable so filled with sadistic garbage filled with pathological mayhem? Most of these films seem to have a particular problem with women, and seem to focus on them being terrorized and murdered. This film could have been every bit as suspenseful without being sick and twisted in the process. All it ends up doing is turning the viewer's stomach with its sickness, and insulting the viewer's intelligence.<br /><br />The cast is misleadingly good. My guess is that they BAGGED Sutherland first, and used him to lure the others like lemmings into this.<br /><br />I'm kicking myself for wasting time, giving this piece of garbage a chance. | 0neg
|
There is absolutely no plot in this movie ...no character development...no climax...nothing. But has a few good fighting scenes that are actually pretty good. So there you go...as a movie overall is pretty bad, but if you like a brainless flick that offer nothing but just good action scene then watch this movie. Do not expect nothing more that just that.Decent acting and a not so bad direction..A couple of cameos from Kimbo and Carano...I was looking to see Carano a little bit more in this movie..she is a good fighter and a really hot girl.... White is a great martial artist and a decent actor. I really hope he can land a better movie in the future so we can really enjoy his art..Imagine a film with White and Jaa together...that would be awesome | 0neg
|
A black guy fights ..... and supposedly wins .... yeah ... 1/10. Obviously fiction.<br /><br />So we're presented with a damm nice title, a real nice tag line and even a nice plot line .. Thats about it, thats where it ends.. We move into fiction after that.<br /><br />Michael Jai White, the black guy so don't get confused with the name.. portrays a black guy.. Umm, thats all there is to the name..<br /><br />Its so hard to find decent help, must have hired the black guys friends to help cause the low budget, low ineptness of this movie, has the camera's shadow trailing the first scenes.... Yeah obvious idiot moment for the average guy like you and me.. but yeah...<br /><br />10 lines. review submitted,. if you paid to see this movie, you got screwed. | 0neg
|
Not exactly my genre, this straight-to-DVD street fight action is one I only encountered due to a friend putting it on whilst we had a few beers. I'm relatively open minded, and quite a fan of Eamonn Walker, so I sat back ready to enjoy myself.<br /><br />Blood and Bone is the story of Isiah Bone, an ex-con who becomes a street fighter for unclear reasons which eventually unfold as the film progresses. Blah blah blah.<br /><br />What a tedious film. I understand that films like this don't rely hugely on plot, but do they have to stuff in such a silly, predictable and entirely stupid storyline? It may not be important, but by golly gum does it annoy me. Better no plot and pure action than a clíche-ridden fleabag mongrel of a narrative. Infused with entirely unfounded and unachieving sentimental drivel, it is the cinematic equivalent of a thin-skinned turkey stuffed with rotten innards. I should probably at this point mention what is, of course, the film's drawing point: the fighting. Even in itself, the fighting is rather poor. Bone manages to take out well established tough-man street fighters in single punches (a large oaf or two is the filmmakers' laughworthy attempt to rectify this inconsistency); fighters who never seem to conclude that attacking one by one is a foolish ploy. Even this is repetitive and stupid, arms broken and faces kicked with a steady alacrity that we get to see time and time again.<br /><br />A run of the mill, film-by-numbers movie which fully deserves its straight to DVD status, doing absolutely nothing new and everything we've seen time and time again. And not even particularly well. | 0neg
|
This film reminded me of The Sopranos, and not in a good way. <br /><br />David Chase's seminal mob opera only ever put its foot wrong twice, the most jarring and inexplicable instance of which took place in its fourth season, when Junior Soprano went on trial for his life. Rather than pursue this riveting (and pivotal) plot line, the writers instead chose to completely ignore it, focusing instead on Bobby Baccalieri's constant whimpering over his recently deceased wife's frozen pasta dish. <br /><br />When something of genuine interest happens in Notorious - for example that first, mysterious assassination attempt on Tupac Shakur that ignited the whole East Coast/West Coast feud in the first place, and ended up leading to the deaths of both Tupac and Christopher Wallace - the film treats it as just another bit of plot to plod through. Why exactly was Tupac so convinced that he was sold out by his own people? Did he alone nurture his subsequent affiliation with Suge Knight? And was Lil' Kim's transformation from prim office drone into sex-obsessed, vampish diva really as banal as it appears here?<br /><br />None of these questions are even fleetingly addressed by the film's screenwriters, who are far more interested in depicting Wallace's turbulent love life to zero compelling dramatic avail. These sequences (including a brain-frazzlingly clichéd groupie indescretion in a hotel room) are so toothless and bruisingly manipulative that the only real comparison to be made is with a network TV movie.<br /><br />The storytelling, in both structure and content, is simplistic and trite. But more fundamentally, as a biopic; as something designed to celebrate its subject and educate the uninitiated on the intricacies of their life and work; the film is almost entirely worthless. The reliance on meat-and-potatoes genre plotting, coupled with the lifeless musical performances (an area in which a film like this should soar, surely) result in a film that appears to have been designed only to satisfy the whims and demands of those involved, leaving Wallace's questionable status as a giant in his field as the preserve of the easily persuaded and previously converted only. <br /><br />And the final twenty minutes, in which Wallace's posthumous cultural identity is broadly painted as being akin to that of a latter day saint, quite frankly made me feel like throwing up. <br /><br />On that score, much as with any other, Notorious is crass, calculating and compromised. | 0neg
|
If this is supposed to be the black experience, let me out at either the front or back door.<br /><br />A mama's boy one day sees 2 young hoods walk by and from then on it's all down hill for him. Angela Bassett, the one shining grace in this film, plays his over protective, religious mother. Despite her anger at how his life has turned, by the middle of the picture, she really decides to accept this. She allows his friends to come in and suddenly it's all right to use the profanity as long as it's not in front of the children.<br /><br />This is a sad state of affairs regarding gangster rap. You knew where this film was heading.<br /><br />I literally laughed out loud when at the end, when Bassett is accompanying her son's body for burial, she states that while his life had been cut short at age 24, he had become a man. What man? He had been a convicted criminal, wrote the most atrocious rap music with constant vulgarity,and scorned society. That scene in the classroom where he tells a teacher that as a sanitation worker, he will earn more than the teacher is a perfect example of what goes on in our schools. The complete and utter lack of respect for the teacher.<br /><br />The east coast, west coast gang rap rivalry is never fully explained. All we see are guns blazing.<br /><br />A terrible picture doing nothing to prevent gang violence. What horrible role models are these rap singers and their foul music. The African American community should take umbrage at their very being. Who was this classless fat slob who portrayed Biggie? He made Rerun from the old television show look thin by comparison. I know it was the streets of Bedford Stuyvesant that changed this chubby little boy into the vulgar monster that he was. What a sorry state of affairs when this is called motion picture entertainment. | 0neg
|
As a fan of Notorious B.I.G., I was looking forward to this movie. I am unfortunate to see it is a terrible movie. Jamal Woodward is not convincing or realistic enough to portray Notorious B.I.G. A lot of the story follows Notorious B.I.G.'s real son, Christopher Jordan Wallace as Notorious B.I.G. as a kid. Unfortunately, he is not convincing enough to pay tribute to his father. Derek Luke is just as unconvincing as Sean "Puffy" Combs. In a nutshell, no one is convincing enough to play their roles here. The big problem with this are these are actual people they are playing. It was boring, and did not give any information about Notorious B.I.G. that fans and non-fans alike did not already know. I was especially disappointed with Angela Bassett, a very good actress wasted here as Voletta Wallace. The movie slugs and slugs along thinking that Notorious B.I.G. fans will spend tons of money on it. I am unfortunate to say that that happened. It's nowhere close to a good movie. I was expecting so much out of it, but unfortunately I didn't get anything I wanted from this. I think you should definitely skip this one. | 0neg
|
Look,I'm reading and reading this comments and there's a lot of it that I wanna say but I will try to make it short but clean...<br /><br />First of all, lets forget all of the things how bad this movie was made...How it didn't show anything of Notorious and I agree with the most people here saying that it was "Hollywood", I mean, what did you expect a real life story? When will people wake up and see that u will never ever find the real truth about 2pac and Biggie... Its all covered up and buried deep down.<br /><br />Second, I'm not against neither 2pac or Biggie I love them both but 2pac and Lil Kim DID get embarrassed in this movie for sure...<br /><br />Next, for all of ya that are saying that the movie is awesome and cant see the truth, either u are too blind too see it because u think u know something about BIG or you don't know anything about him at all and u love this Hollywood teenage movies. Use your mind and see though the clouds... There is a lot of it you could say when it gets to this topic, I did not say 60% of what I have to say because its a very wide topic but for the movie I can only say that it could have been a little bit, I mean a much better done. But anyways I'm just some person giving her opinion....No hard feelings...<br /><br />Look, I love hip hop and I live for it but after seeing this movie every person with a little intelligence could see that this is not how someone is suppose to live. With all do respect for 2pac and BIG, like all the other artists who are making for a living like this should turn the other page because u are ruining the youth....Bringing the wrong message to the children and that is: not going to school but living from the streets, hustling and just grabbing for the paper....<br /><br />The true hip hop is suppose to be about love and intelligence, be smart and all.<br /><br />OK I know that many of you will think that I'm crazy, but this is just my point of view. Look I am maybe wrong about something and Im not saying this is a completely bad movie because even if I'm in hip hop for 17, 18 years I still don't know anything bout 2pac or Biggie no matter how many articles I read or how much I support them and listen to their music...Like most of you all out there. Only people who were really close to them and the killers know the truth behind all this.<br /><br />And for the end I just wanna say for all of ya Biggie and Tupac fans and family, this two men were and will be the greatest of all time, no matter how they lived their lives but PLEASE IN THE FUTURE TRY TO BE BETTER, LEARN AND LOVE EACH OTHER, THINK GOOD EVEN FOR THE ONES THAT Don't LIKE YOU, BECAUSE AT THE END...ITS NOT ABOUT HOW MANY MONEY OR FAME U COULD GET AND HOW FAST U COULD GET TO THE TOP, ITS ABOUT ACCOMPLISHING YOUR SELF TO THE FULLEST AND FEEDING YOUR SOUL, YOUR BODY AND MIND...BECAUSE IF U MANAGE TO DO THAT, YOU WILL BE LIVING A LIFE EVEN AFTER DEATH!!!! PEACE AND LOVE TO YA ALL!!!! RIP BIGGIE,2PAC,AALIYAH,LEFT EYE,JAM MASTER JAY AND THE OTHERS WHO MAKE A CHANGE IN THIS WORLD!!!! | 0neg
|
I thought the movie was OK but very disappointed that they didn't capture the true image of his life. I was so anticipating to see his mother being an actual Jamaican, that it's driving me crazy. Just watching the beginning of the movie told me that the movie was not accurate. Which I completely lost interest just a matter of seconds from the beginning of the movie. I'm very disappointed, that's like watching a biography story on Mark Anthony and having Arnold play the part. I don't know what the writer was thinking missing a valuable piece of the movie which I'm sure his mother played a huge role in his life. I will say the movie was OK besides the major Fla!!!!!! | 0neg
|
if you didn't live in the 90's or didn't listen to rapper EVER!! this movie might be OK for you, but any for any fan or any single person who ever listened to rap this movie was boring and there was no point in the movie where i said thats interesting or i didn't know that. another thing that bugged me was it made it look like anything in his life he did was very easy there was no struggle he made jail look easy, selling drugs, and even rapping it wasn't realistic. i think if the movie where released in about 15 years from now it might have more of an impact maybe!!! good rap movies hustle and flow, get rich or die trying not notorious | 0neg
|
Sure, if you ask any mom who's the most beautiful baby in the world, she'd tell you her son is the most amazing kid in the whole world. She's right, at least in her own world.<br /><br />The producers of the movie were biggie's mother and his good friend Puffy. Oh, well, do I need to say more? I'll break it down for those who doesn't want to do a simple deduction.<br /><br />The whole movie was fake. You may just put a few biggie's MTV video together and call it a movie.<br /><br />The beautiful Angela Bassett played Biggie's mother. The real one in life looks like a dog.<br /><br />I just wonder why he called himself biggie small. Big body Small dick? Big mouth Small sound? Big fat Small eyes? Disclaimer: I'm a person of color. So keep your racist remark to yourself. | 0neg
|
This film was a disaster from start to finish. Interspersed with performances from "the next generation of beautiful losers" are interviews with Bono and The Edge as well as the performers themselves. This leaves little time for the clips of Leonard Cohen himself, who towers over everyone else in the film with his commanding yet gentle presence, wisdom and humor. The rest are too busy trying to canonize him as St. Leonard or as some Old Testament prophet. Many of the performances are forgettable over-interpretations (especially Rufus & Martha Wainright's) or bland under-achievements. Only Beth Orton and Anthony got within striking distance of Leonard's own versions by using a little restraint. Annoying little pseudo-avant-garde gestures are sprinkled throughout the film- like out of focus superimpositions of red spheres over many of the concert and interview shots, shaky blurred camera work, use of digital delay on some of Leonard Cohen's comments (making it harder to hear what's being said) and a spooky, pretentious low drone under a lot of the interview segments (an attempt at added gravitas?). For the real thing, see the Songs From The Life Of documentary produced by the BBC in 1988. | 0neg
|
The saddest thing about this "tribute" is that almost all the singers (including the otherwise incredibly talented Nick Cave) seem to have missed the whole point where Cohen's intensity lies: by delivering his lines in an almost tuneless poise, Cohen transmits the full extent of his poetry, his irony, his all-round humanity, laughter and tears in one.<br /><br />To see some of these singer upstarts make convoluted suffering faces, launch their pathetic squeals in the patent effort to scream "I'm a singer!," is a true pain. It's the same feeling many of you probably had listening in to some horrendous operatic versions of simple songs such as Lennon's "Imagine." Nothing, simply nothing gets close to the simplicity and directness of the original. If there is a form of art that doesn't need embellishments, it's Cohen's art. Embellishments cast it in the street looking like the tasteless make-up of sex for sale.<br /><br />In this Cohen's tribute I found myself suffering and suffering through pitiful tributes and awful reinterpretations, all of them entirely lacking the original irony of the master and, if truth be told, several of these singers sounded as if they had been recruited at some asylum talent show. It's Cohen doing a tribute to them by letting them sing his material, really, not the other way around: they may have been friends, or his daughter's, he could have become very tender-hearted and in the mood for a gift. Too bad it didn't stay in the family.<br /><br />Fortunately, but only at the very end, Cohen himself performed his majestic "Tower of Song," but even that flower was spoiled by the totally incongruous background of the U2, all of them carrying the expression that bored kids have when they visit their poor grandpa at the nursing home.<br /><br />A sad show, really, and sadder if you truly love Cohen as I do. | 0neg
|
I would not consider myself as one of Leonard Cohen's greatest fans. He does however feature as an important poet / musician in my literary / musical heritage. By far the most valuable element in this documentary is to hear Leonard's reflections on his own life and career. Warming and humble. <br /><br />Unfortunately the most of the musicians featured in the concert didn't converse the nuances of Leonard's musical / literary manner. Nick Cave, Jarvis Cocker & Beth Orton were the exceptions, even though Leonard highly values Rufus Wainrights interpretations of his songs.<br /><br />What particularly failed in this documentary was the ability of the filmmaker to allow the viewer to see who Leonard Cohen is and how these musicians connect to him. A lot is said in this respect, but the viewer is not drawn into the person Leonard Cohen. This failing is especially evident with the interviews with Bono and the Edge. They view Leonard as a special icon, but can't translate their exact value of Leonard Cohen. The collaboration with U2 is a farce. The entire live registration looks like a rushed job. And just as in the whole film, only Leonard Cohen remains his part and can tell about his own part.<br /><br />The entire montage and screenplay is much like a high school extramural project. The use of effects such as echo, slow-motion or flashed images are ill placed. Some of the camera-work is dismal. Part of the score hardly recalls any associations I may have expected. At times it seemed the filmmaker was adding psychotic elements to the film. Perhaps a reference to his once use of LSD.<br /><br />Some unintentional humor ... at some point Leonard tells how he influenced a musical genre. Initially he can't recall the genre's name, until eventually he says it was punk, the punksters really picked up on his music. The next scene in the film is a live cover of 'I can't forget' ...<br /><br />"And I can't forget, I can't forget I can't forget but I don't remember who" | 0neg
|
I've been a fan since his first album. This film is a disservice to him. The performances, except for one by Rufus Wainwright and Teddy Thompson are simply terrible. <br /><br />Those by Martha Wainwright, Nick Cave, Antony, and Jarvis Cocker were particularly annoying. Even the one by the McGarrigle sisters was ruined by the so called harmony of Martha Wainwright.<br /><br />I've never seen my wife get up and walk out of the room on a film before and I found myself fast forwarding through the performances to get to the few interview segments, which were also difficult to watch due to the poor camera work. <br /><br />There are many who have been able to interpret Mr. Cohen's songs, Jennifer Warnes, KD Lang, Billy Joel, Aaron Neville, and Willie Nelson come to mind, but those people selected for this performance were just awful.<br /><br />Hopefully there will be another attempt at capturing Leonard Cohen on film that will illustrate his insight, talent, and intelligence.<br /><br />So sad | 0neg
|
What kind of a documentary about a musician fails to include a single track by the artist himself?! Unlike "Ray" or countless other films about music artists, half the fun in the theater (or on the couch) is reliving the great songs themselves. Here, all the tracks are covers put on by uninteresting characters, and these renditions fail to capture Cohen's slow, jazzy style. More often, the covers are badly sung folk versions. Yuck.<br /><br />The interviews are as much or more with other musicians and figures rather than with Cohen himself. Only rarely does the film feature Cohen reading his own work (never singing)-- like letters, poems, etc. The movie really didn't capture much about the artist's life story, either, or about his development through the years. A huge disappointment for a big Cohen fan. | 0neg
|
This film should have been only 10 minutes. I mean there is really only 10 minute worth of watchable content in this thing (I even hesitate to call it a movie). The opening credits of the film was somehow promising. As the film begins by short comments of the man himself, you really rub your hands and stay tuned for more footage from Cohen's life. Well, Nick Cave does a reasonable job covering one of Cohen's famous songs. The length of Cave's performance makes you even more eager to see more of Cohen whose wit and well spoken words have already tickled your fancy. But as it turns out Cave's performance is only the start of lengthy super boring performances by literally a bunch of no ones who don't even have a minimal attraction to keep you on your seat. I mean what does the filmmaker really think? five-minute close-up shots of wanna be singers in a fake concert in Australia!!! What does the filmmaker really think to insult the audience by adding "fake applause" to these endless nasty performances. The film is a perfect torture that shows you very little of what you came to see. There is not a single footage of Cohen's past. In fact, except for a few photographs of his early days as a singer/poet there is absolutely nothing! If you add up all the minutes that Cohen talks it may not even reach 10 minutes. But these 10 minutes are tortuously presented bit by bit in between disastrous camera-work that captures some of the most unattractive people screaming Cohen's lyrics. If you ever decided to waste your money on this film, DON'T! just throw it in the garbage and at least save your time. | 0neg
|
Hey,<br /><br />If your going to make a documentary about Leonard Cohen try making it about Leonard Cohen! This is filled with only enough Leonard to anger the viewer who will be left wondering why they are listening to all these other singers (some of them questionable) talk about themselves. Puleeze....sounds like them reliving their diary entries in junior high - who cares about you, what about Leonard? Guess what people, if you "do something" worthy maybe someone will make a documentary about you. I found particularly insulting the parading of U2's members as if that would add credibility to this movie - NOT. Leonard doesn't need Bono or the Edge talking about his spirituality. What would have been nice would have been for the filmmakers to embody some piece of his spirituality through the film. Gee, what a concept! I will give props to Rufus Wainwright and Jarvis Cocker for their covers of Cohen tunes - the rest of the performances were a bore and some were unbearable.<br /><br />Cohen fans, don't say I didn't warn you! | 0neg
|
The people who are praising this film are the real disappointments -- I am hoping at least that Leonard will see some good $$ out of this, as his life savings were embezzled away by a manager a couple of years ago and he's over 70 now. But this film is simply terrible. At the beginning Leonard himself says he is not sentimental about his past, and then for the next hour and a half the film emphasizes all the worst sentimental elements of Leonard's songs. It is so bloody PRECIOUS with its endless close-ups of over emoting singers. Cohen's interview is all done in lo-fi video closeups and I so wanted to see a medium or a long shot of his whole body! I couldn't care less about the comments of the performers, especially those overblown ego boys Edge and Bono. None of the performers in this film have done even one song as good as Leonard's own music and if you are thinking about seeing this and you have any doubts at all, heed them. This would be an acceptable PBS special, maybe, for a one time showing. But I will even hesitate at getting a DVD of this. When the film finally shows Leonard semi-performing "Tower of Song" it's ruined by Bono taking a verse. Even the occasional good performances (Antony, Rufus' first number, Martha's The Traitor) are spoiled by the context of the rest of this turgid blabla. Forget this one, and go buy Leonard's most recent album if you want to pay tribute to him. | 0neg
|
I just don't get some of the big premises of this episode - that Miranda is so remarkable, and that there's anything so ugly it would make you insane. Someone here made the remark that maybe it's the frequency of the light waves or something rather than it being ugliness. Miranda is just a jerk. The episode is slow, inconsistent and way too talky. I also don't quite understand why Kolos is an ambassador - why doesn't the Federation just leave the damn Medusans be? There's one part I do like, when Kolos is speaking through Spock about the loneliness of the human experience. Overall, I love TOS and even at its lamest, I'll always tune in. This episode though - mmm, I wouldn't purchase it except for a used copy under $3. | 0neg
|
I am very unpolitically correct guy, so when I say sexist I really mean it reduced the female guest lead, Dr Miranda Jones played by Diana Muldar. in spite of all her supposed brilliance and self control, to nothing more inside but a big, jealous unreasonable baby You prolly got the plot by now, after her technical sidekick Marvik, also a spurned lover, flips out when he tried to kill the Medusan, Ambassador Kollos, out of a jealous rage, but glimpsed first it instead. (You think he could have just walked in to the room with his eyes shut and phasered the box, too easy) he takes the Enterprise into un-navigable space outside the galaxy before the boys could subdue him. Well, the ship is stuck in limbo, at that point they could have gone to the good lady doctor-liaison and discussed it. "Spock has to make a mind meld with the Medusan so we can get home. I mean like beetch do you want to stay adrift until we run out of supplies and die?" But the lady in true Star Trek fashion is a jealous monsters who whines and wails when the idea is broached, even when her Medusan idol told her to shut up & go along with them. So the beetch out of spite messes with the melded Spock causing him to forget to put on his visor which makes Spock go insane. Kirk, naturally, figured out what a total twit she was and shamed her into fixing Spock up with her superior telepathic powers. Of course, at the end the Lady and Medusan leave and all is forgiven. You almost wish the President from Battle Star Galactica showed up to jettison the witch out of an airlock for her destructive stunt. But in Star Trek land, ladies are permitted to be totally unreasonable and cruel, yet at the same time supposedly there is sexual equality. This is what I mean by sexist. | 0neg
|
Another weak third-season entry, 'Is There In Truth No Beauty?' nonetheless has at least one key plot element that is very different and as Spock would say, fascinating. The main character is an alien who must be carried around in a black box because his appearance is so horrendous that it drives humans insane. It's too bad the episode cannot live up to this incredible premise. Obviously, I think, it was a mistake to ever 'show' the alien, as its actual visage in no way even approximates such a daunting build-up; all we get is the standard Star Trek psychedelic light display used for any number of things in different episodes, usually when the ship is passing through a magnetic storm or something similar. In any event, Kollos' appearance can at least be tolerated by Mr. Spock, and then only if Spock is wearing a special visor. (For the longest time, I thought the alien's name was 'Carlos,' which I found humorous, but I digress.) Spock is required to mind-meld with Kollos at one point so that the alien can pilot the Enterprise back to safety. This is accomplished, but when Spock/Kollos go back to end the mind-meld, by golly, Spock forgets his visor. Uh oh. He goes crazy but eventually recovers with the help of Kollos' assistant, a blind woman with psychic powers. This might have been a really bizarre, excellent episode but it is poorly directed and comes across as yet one more badly executed show of the series' last season. | 0neg
|
Is this the "worse" Star Trek TOS episode? Maybe, at least it gets my vote as being in the bottom 5. I mean, this episode makes absolutely no freaking sense. Seeing something that makes you go mad? Give me a break. This episode also has a different feel to it, the music is heightened, almost forced to enhance a feeling of distress, to the point that it sucks. Give me some Klingons, Gorns, Tholians, Romulans, higher beings like Triskelion's or anything but Medusin's, these are very boring aliens to make an episode around. McCoy gets to utter his famous phrase "He's Dead, Jim". Spock puts on the protective goggles when transporting the ambassador away but Kirk does not. They go through that freaking "barrier" now for the third time that I can remember, boring. At least season three's next episodes would be "Spectre Of The Gun", and "Day of The Dove" and others to follow, making Trek a decent show to watch in syndication where it would pick people like me up as avid fans. Personal observations, Trek loved to use the color purple, its kind of a pinkish purple, like when they are in the corridor outside the compartment, the gangway that is normally grey is now purple. We never had a purple bridge but its interesting to see, I noticed it in several episodes, it was done by a light filter and it works very well but in this episode, in the ships corridor is pretty lame. | 0neg
|
Diana Muldaur appears on Star Trek for the second time, but this time as a different character. No one on board seems to notice--maybe it was the hair. Regardless, this time she is not the receptacle for a god (see the previous episode) but is a very famous lady with magical powers that enable her to communicate and see a Medusan without going crazy (the standard human response). Unfortunately, the man that is most in love with her is a few cards short of a full deck and he tries to kill the Medusan ambassador (who, oddly, lives in a small crate--this is a lousy way to travel). And, unfortunately, Muldayr isn't wound all that well herself. What happens next is kind of dumb and by the time the episode was over the first time I saw it, I was pretty relieved. Watching all the men on board go ga-ga over Muldaur was pretty silly and the acting of Spock when he briefly went crazy was pretty campy. Do yourself a favor--if you haven't seen the show before, pick a different episode. | 0neg
|
During the Civil War, there were many cases of divided loyalties; obviously, many occurred "In the Border States", where North met South by happenstance of geography. From the border, young father Owen Moore goes off to join the Union Army. Shortly, Confederate soldier Henry B. Walthall, separated from his regimen, wanders onto the enemy's property, desperate for water; he finds a supply where the Unionist's young daughter Gladys Egan sits. When the Yankee soldiers track him down, Little Gladys innocently helps the Confederate hide. Later, when he returns to kill her father, the little girl's kindness is remembered. A sweet, small story from director D.W. Griffith. Location footage and humanity are lovingly displayed. <br /><br />**** In the Border States (6/13/10) D.W. Griffith ~ Henry B. Walthall, Owen Moore, Gladys Egan | 0neg
|
My mother keeps a cassette of this film as a general threat to any film loving person who annoys her. Everything about it stinks.<br /><br />As such it is a true classic.<br /><br />Who gave it 10/10? Were you inadvertently watching a good film and accidentally voted for this one?<br /><br />Everyone involved in the movie making process should be forced to watch at least a small section of this film. It should be an indelible stain on the minds on all that hold film sacred and be revered as the tide mark of the cinematically dire. | 0neg
|
What exactly was going on during World War 11 in New Zealand when American forces were there?<br /><br />This awful story of 4 sisters was really pathetic to view. Can you imagine casting Joan Fontaine as the older sister to Sandra Dee? Fontaine looked more like her mother. Even funnier was that Fontaine becomes pregnant in the film.<br /><br />Piper Laurie and Paul Newman who showed such great on screen chemistry 4 years later in "The Hustler," have no scenes together in this film. Laurie plays another sister who goes off to Wellington to tramp around there, despite the fact that she is married. Woe to her when her husband comes back from the war.<br /><br />Jean Simmons is widowed and finds romance with a much subdued Paul Newman. There is even romance for the young Miss Dee here.<br /><br />The picture has little to no meaning. Are they trying to say that all is fair in love and war? If they are, they did a poor job in selling this.<br /><br />The conflict of interest with Newman and Simmons is quickly disposed of. That is what should have been quickly done to this terribly disappointing film of 1957. | 0neg
|
Unusual? Yes!<br /><br />Unusual setting for an American wartime movie, New Zealand.<br /><br />Unusual subject matter, four sisters and their relationships with American soldiers, from one bearing the illegitimate child of the dead son of a Senator, to another living with seven Marines (one at a time) before being murdered by her returning POW New Zealander husband.<br /><br />Unusual to see Paul Newman deliver such a poor performance so soon after his unforgettable role as Rocky Graziano in the brilliant "Somebody Up There Loves Me".<br /><br />Unusual for two fine "Stars" Joan Fontaine and Jean Simmons, to leave so little of themselves on a movie.<br /><br />Unusual that I could be bothered to write a review of such a poor film, give it a miss! | 0neg
|
I rented this movie yesterday and can hardly express my disappointment in little Laura Ingalls for getting involved in something so poorly produced. I am not sure if it was horrible writing or bad directing or both but it leaves a viewer very disappointed in having wasted the time to watch this swill. It consisted of a weak naive story line, very poor lines, and relied solely on pretty scenery, and pretty people to sell it. Unfortunately this was not enough. You would be better off to rent a tape full of static than to waste your time on this crap. Lindsey Wagner also played a pretty pathetic part as a ranch owner who apparently works very hard doing nothing, anybody who has ever been near a ranch knows that this was obviously written by a young person from los Angeles and not someone with much knowledge of the world. | 0neg
|
Carl Panzram lived an amazing life and scribbled down his memoirs on scraps of paper for possibly the only person who ever did anything selfless for him. The book "Panzram: A Journal of Murder" by Thomas E. Gaddis and James O. Long, which came out the better part of a century after Panzram's death, gives the historical context to a first-generation American's account of running away from home to go west and be a cowboy, getting caught, thrown in the boy's home, getting away repeatedly and thrown into prison over and over all the time getting tortured and sodomized. As Panzram grew huge and strong, he sought to take revenge for the wrong done to him as he traveled to South America, Europe and Africa, and it didn't matter what people he raped, robbed, or murdered because we are all equally worthless.<br /><br />This film casts skinny James Woods as the rough neck, mean-ass, son of a bitch Carl Panzram who in the film is a "drunk", overly-dramatic and emotional, and who never mentions the joy of sodomizing men and boys. The film neither elaborates on anything else particularly of note about this world traveler and career prisoner (like robbing former President Taft or being released from the Oregon prison as long as he gave his word to return). In short, I don't think Carl would be too happy. | 0neg
|
This movie wants to elaborate that criminals are a product of modern society. Therefore, can thieves, rapists and murderers (the Killer of this movie, Carl Panzram (James Woods), is all three and worse) be held fully accountable for their deeds? An interesting notion, but very difficult to bring to the screen in an intellectually and emotionally satisfying way. And this is where Killer: A Journal of Murder falls very short. Although the film tries to put Panzram's behaviour into perspective, with flashbacks to his violent youth and dysfunctional upbringing, the viewer never gets the idea that Panzram is a victim rather than a culprit. Sure, the system is corrupt, with one mobster occupying the whole sick bay of Leavenworth Prison (where most of the movie takes place), most prison guards are sadistic bullies, and the prison director something like a megalomaniacal despot. But why on earth does new prison guard Henry Lesser (Robert Sean Leonard) take such pity on Panzram? Even after having read his gruesome diaries? The movie offers some explanation: Lesser witnesses Panzram being beaten to a pulp by the most sadistic (and stereotypical) guard, and is impressed by Panzram's intelligence (though it isn't clear why exactly Lesser thinks this man is so smart). Surely this isn't enough to sympathize with a hostile man like Panzram, even though this movie tends to downplay his crimes and highlight his personality? Towards Lesser, Panzram is quite loyal, and the viewer is given the impression that for Lesser this outweighs all of the atrocities he has read about in Panzram's diaries. Does this man Lesser have so little friends that he takes at face value everyone who seems only remotely friendly to him? Perhaps it is Lesser who is a product of modern society, judging on appearance rather than substance.<br /><br />I can advise Monster, starring Charlize Theron and Christina Ricci, as a movie which handles roughly the same themes with far more integrity and scope.<br /><br />BTW: Killer looks as though shot for TV (not so good) | 0neg
|
The excruciatingly slow pace of this film was probably the director's express intention, in order to convey what life was like growing up as a village teen in China. However, I found the combination of the glacially slow 'plot' and the general filming style so impersonal as to be totally alienating, particularly to a western audience. At times I actually had trouble telling some characters apart, as they were filmed from such a distance. Two hours in and I was totally past caring. As someone who is not only interested in music but is also very into the history and culture of China (and is by the way no stranger to Chinese cinema), I couldn't engage with a single character and found nothing to get my teeth into. It begs the question: If I disliked it, who on earth would like it? Give me Zhang Yimou, give me Chen Kaige. Give me the work of just about any other Chinese director I've ever seen. This sorry effort just doesn't measure up at all. I'd be sorry to see Chinese cinema judged against this benchmark. | 0neg
|
I have seen many, many films from China - and Hong Kong. This is the worst. No, the worst one was 'Unknown Pleasures'. I watched 'Platform' yesterday evening and thought that Jia Zhang Ke's other two films must be better. This evening I was disappointed again. I will not be watching 'Xiao Wu' tomorrow evening because I have just placed all three films in the bin! Whoever gave this film, 'Platform' ten out of ten, needs to watch more cinema! The photography was very poor: it was very difficult to differentiate between some of the characters because of the lack of close-up work. The storyline was so disjointed that I fast-forwarded it towards the end out of pure frustration. I would not recommend this film to anyone. Give me Zhang Yimou or Chen Kage any day. These are true masters of Chinese cinema, not pretentious con men! | 0neg
|
This movie is truly boring. It was banned in Chinese cinema and i can see why. It's not because it's critical of the communist regime but simply because the movie is of such low quality. I would never want to pay money to watch this. I love movies from Chen Kaige and Zhang Yimou and i am disappointed such a poor movie could come out of China. It totally seems to ignore the audience and the director seems to have made the movie for himself. The shots of a person standing there doing nothing for up to a minute are hilarious and there's plenty of them. The cinematography and video quality are unbelievably bad. I looked this film up on the Net and it seems like people actually like this film. The only explanation i have for this is that some film buffs think that if a film is not in English it is automatically good. I can't see any reason why people would like this. this is not an art film it's of waste of celluloid.(That's if they actually shot it on film , which they didn't) | 0neg
|
The concept was ok but hardly original. The acting was plastic. But the real spoiler was that there was only one joke and a grubby one at that. This is a film for fourteen year olds who have been let out on their own for the first time. Don't dare to watch it with your kids. | 0neg
|
Having enjoyed Mike Myers previous work (Waynes World and Saturday Night Live) my expectations of a 60s bond spoof were fairly high. It became plain after the first minute that this was an exercise in how to be as puerile and unfunny as possible. I swit ched off after ten minutes. I watched it the other day a second time to see whether I had been unfair the first time. I switched it off after ten minutes. I find it hard to believe how even a twelve year-old boy could find this funny. The dialogue is an e mbarrassment, Myers is painful to watch (as is Heather Graham) and the succession of characters including Fat Bastard makes matters even worse. Apart from the mildly amusing title and the psychedelic set design this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. I personally recommend you avoid this like the plague, though several friends of mine enjoyed it (maybe they were blindfolded at the time).º | 0neg
|
POSSIBLE SPOILERS<br /><br />The Spy Who Shagged Me is a muchly overrated and over-hyped sequel. International Man of Mystery came straight out of the blue. It was a lone star that few people had heard of. But it was stunningly original, had sophisticated humour and ample humour, always kept in good taste, and had a brilliant cast. The Spy Who Shagged Me was a lot more commercially advertised and hyped about.<br /><br />OK I'll admit, the first time I saw this film I thought it was very funny, but it's only after watching it two or three times that you see all the flaws. The acting was OK, but Heather Graham cannot act. Her performance didn't seem very convincing and she wasn't near as good as Liz Hurley was in the first one. Those characters who bloomed in the first one, (Scott Evil, Number 2 etc.) are thrown into the background hear and don't get many stand-alone scenes. The film is simply overrun with cameos.<br /><br />In particular, I hated the way they totally disregarded some of the scenes in IMOM. When they killed off Vanessa at the start and had Basil sat that he knew she was a fembot all along. What was the point of that? They killed off Number 2 in the first one, and now they bring him back with no explanation whatsoever. This is supposed to be a spy-spoof, I don't think any of the characters even hold a gun in the film. It just goes on a trail, further and further away from the point.<br /><br />The new characters are very unwelcome. The whole Mini-Me `make fun of my size' joke gets old very quickly. Fat Bastard is just a lame excuse for gross-out humour. In total there's about two or three good jokes. The rest are either tasteless or rehashed from IMOM.<br /><br />If this were the first movie of the series then I'd probably be easier on it. But the series started on a note of dry wit and then plummeted down to a level of gross out humour. So I say, only watch this film if you haven't seen its predecessor, because The Spy Who Shagged Me is one ultimate disappointment. | 0neg
|
This film is not even worth walking to the movie theatre. No jokes, but stupid and boring laughing on repeated disgusting stuff. The music and the girls are great, unfortunately you have to watch the whole movie to enjoy them. It was weak, very very weak. | 0neg
|
The opening 5 minutes gave me hope. Then Meyers proved he only had one good idea for the rest of the movie. Absolute lowest common denominator humor. Painful viewing. A complete chore. Written no doubt in less than a week, just like the first one. Give Meyers the hook and lock him in a cell with Adam Sandler and Will Farrell. And don't let him out until he's developed a decent script for something, anything. He has it in him. These Austin Powers things are just embarrassing. <br /><br />Let Goldmember sink without trace. | 0neg
|
This one is a little better than the first one. It still relies on a lot of its humor which basically keeps saying that the old Bond movies were not realistic. That wears thin after so many parodies. The girls were more interesting in this one.<br /><br />There is a tremendous amount of total gross out humor. Hopefully one day real comedy will come back. | 0neg
|
Yeah, that about sums it up. This movie was horrifying. Two minutes in I wanted to gouge my eyes out. This has been praised as an "innovative LDS comedy," but it's not even good for members of that church! I don't think any human being should be so victimized as to watch a movie of this low quality.<br /><br />First of all, you can tell that absolutely no effort whatsoever went into this movie. It seems as if the horribly drab, glib, trite plot was thrown together by two crazy weasels somehow imbued with the gift for coherent (at least semi-coherent) thought. Then, there's the acting, which is dismal from *everybody* involved. Even the cameos fail to liven anything up.<br /><br />And let's not forget the fact that our protagonist is a shallow jerk who we would like to believe can change, but that road is full of embarrassingly bad dialogue, appallingly hideous "gags," and a lot of Mormon "in-jokes" that anyone in their right mind, LDS or not, should consider purely *stupid*! This has to be one of the worst films I've ever seen! | 0neg
|
This movie was terrible. The plot sucked, the acting was bad, the editing was inept and this movie makes me want to poke my eyes out. I wish I had the time I spent watching this movie back. The balloon scene was stupid, the Mormon jokes are really old, the soundtrack sucked, I saw no chemistry between the two leads, it's full of stereotypes, stupid local "celeb" cameo's..most noted was Del "I'm going to drive as fast as I want to.." computer idiot. What is worst is that these actors had to play themselves on the spiritual side and even they screwed that up. This movie help create a long line of lackluster efforts to mainstream LDS beliefs into Hollywood. I.E. The RM, Church ball, etc. etc. I would forgo watching this movie and instead run head first into a brick wall. You will be more entertained than watching this poor excuse for a show. | 0neg
|
don't see this. this was one of the dumbest movies i have ever seen. its hard to be Mormon sometimes when there are movies like this out there. what a sad view of Mormon life. i can tell you if you did see this movie that it is not all like this at all in a singles ward. if it was i don't think i would have made it through it. its too bad that most Mormon movies are made by a group of geeks who have nothing better to do. the acting was so bad that my wife and i barely made it through. i guess you could say that it had all the signs of a B movie. or are there C movies? anyway...i just thought this movie sucked and was full of cheese. i wish some Mormons would start making some quality movies. | 0neg
|
With the runaway success of "God's Army", every Mormon with a camera seems to be trying to make a movie now. In the case of the recent "The Other Side of Heaven", this wasn't at all a bad thing. That film, while not great, was quite good. "The Singles Ward", however, is not.<br /><br />Telling the story of a young, divorced Mormon guy thrust back into single life, the writing and shooting style of "The Singles Ward" is, in many ways, very similar to the 80s comedy "Ferris Bueller's Day Off". However, the similarities end there. While "Ferris Bueller" was funny, original, and well-acted (as far as stupid comedies like this ever are), "The Singles Ward" is completely the opposite. It tries very hard to be funny. However, 90% of the gags either fall flat or are cliches and jokes you've probably heard a million times before. The other 10% seem to be thrown in to fill out the time. And the acting, while not awful, is amaturish at best.<br /><br />In addition, if you're not either a Mormon yourself, or very, VERY familiar with Mormon culture, you won't get hardly anything at all. Whereas "God's Army" and "The Other Side of Heaven" were appealing to a broad range of viewers, both inside and outside of the Mormon church, this film is most definitely one big inside joke, and even if you get it, it's just not that funny. | 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.