text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
...cause they're both pretty lousy. I think the best part of the movie is the horrendously imperial picture of Faye Dunaway at the top of the stairs. She looks like she could very easily step out of that picture, rip someone to bloody pieces, and calmly re-enter the portrait looking as if nothing had happened. Now, you know a movie's in trouble when part of the set furnishings manages to attract your attention.<br /><br />I admit, I paid $30 for the DVD just so I could see Faye Dunaway in a contemporary horror movie. I know what you're thinking--30 bucks right down into a gaping black hole. And you would be absolutely correct. This movie sucks. There, it's right out in the open. I was expecting some actual scares, and I waited and waited and waited. None came. The raven (probably a crow in makeup) didn't scare me, seeing small pieces of internal organs didn't scare me, and even Faye didn't scare me. I'm not that brave, I know, so it must be the movie itself that is the trouble. What's more, Jennifer wasn't scared either. Her internal organs were literally falling apart and she seemed more peeved than anything. Her life was rapidly coming to a close and she's worried about attaining more money. Honey, you can't take money where you're going!!! "I need money," she continually says, completely ignoring the fact that her lungs have collapsed and ceased to function.<br /><br />Meanwhile, I spent the whole blasted movie wondering what was up with the grandmother (Faye). I was suspicious at first, Faye playing a grandmother and all, and I was still suspicious at the end. There is another relative living in the house that Jennifer and Mary Ellen the Grandmother-From-Hell are forced to share temporarily, and I'm guessing she is of the same generation as said grandmother. Here's the weird part--the relative looks like she's just endured her eight hundredth birthday party. Mary Ellen looks like she's just gotten a face-lift from a renowned surgeon. Face-lifts can't work miracles, but I think Faye's appearance is important to the rice-paper plot. SPOILER!!! It seems that the family is plagued by an illness that affects bad acting...sorry, my little joke. Seriously though, there's all illness that causes their organs to fail and ultimately disintegrate. Yuck, huh? Interestingly enough, Mary Ellen is still alive and all her organs are intact. How did she avoid the Family Curse? Something's up with her, obviously.<br /><br />Another reason for mourning the loss of my thirty dollars--this movie features one of my all-time movie pet peeves. I refer to the double ending. This movie ends twice. I absolutely hate it when that happens, and in this movie it feels like the director shot the ending, didn't like it, and forget to remove it during editing. I guess it's supposed to be scary, but it is only if you're a film editor.<br /><br />There is one perk to this debacle, though, and it's one of the reasons I bought the DVD. The "filmmaker" commentary features Faye Dunaway, and I wanted to see how she acted when she didn't have lines to recite. Guess what--the movie sucked so bad I wasn't able to sit through it again. Drat. | 0neg
|
For some reason, TV Guide gave this two and a half stars, plus Faye Dunaway is in it, so it definitely looked like something to see. My, oh, my, this may be the worst film I've ever seen. Ever. From its horrid acting (every time the girl asks the boy what's wrong with him, I shouted to the TV "I can't act!" When she asks what he needs, I yell "I need acting lessons!" to the unbelievably bad dialog ("Give me back my organs!").<br /><br />And the Brian DePalma wannabe ending, too, it was all just beyond awful. I wanted to like it. Dunaway is one of the best actors ever. And the production values were pretty good.<br /><br />But wowzers, this had me laughing, LAUGHING!, most of the time.<br /><br />Don't even bother out of curiosity, that was my first mistake. Staying with it was definitely my second, and third and fourth. | 0neg
|
The only reason I rented this was because of the article in Fangoria Magazine. The article made this film look interesting. Well, it isn't. This was a very boring, amateurishly written and directed movie. All the actors in this movie are awful, except Faye Dunaway, who is always a joy to watch. But too much time was focused on Gina Phillips and her ridiculous encounters with ravens and Duilio Marzio. Marzio has such a thick Argentinean accent, you can only understand every couple of words he says. Also on hand is Nicholas Pauls, who plays the ultra-bland love interest to Gina Phillips. The bottom line: this movie is not scary. There is only one good scene and that is the last five to ten minutes of the movie. I would have given this one star, but I gave it three just because I like Faye Dunaway so much. But even she wasn't that great in this. | 0neg
|
This is the last time I rent a video without checking in at the IMDB reviews. The Limey is directed by Steven Soderbergh who also wrote wrote the truly awful Nightwatch with Ewan Macgregor and directed such trash as Out of Sight with the anti-talented Jennifer Lopez. Terence Stamp is a fine actor and it is a shame he involved himself in such a bad film. There is frequent confusing editing that seems like it was a last minute decision in order to make up for the lack or story, filming and just plain common sense. This film does everything wrong. What were they thinking? | 0neg
|
This film has the look and feel of a Student film project. Yeah, there are some interesting (albeit gimmicky) edits and shots, but the end result was juvenile.<br /><br />The director didn't seem to be saying "Look at this film." It seemed as if he were saying, "Look at ME! I'm a DIRECTOR!"<br /><br />Thumbs down. | 0neg
|
There was not one single redeeming factor in this movie. The girlfriend and I both love action films. Especially fight scenes (Bloodsport and Kickboxer was awesome), but this movie was not entertaining. Five minutes of action followed twenty minutes of talking and "angry" facial expressions. The main hero is a troubled character who has seen battle and thus is forced to look seriously constipated at all times. The Army has disrupted his bowel movements on top of perfecting his fighting technique. The music isn't good either. They fight to the rap and hip-hop style of the streets, 'cause these guys are thugs. The rest of the soundtrack is the usual background noise to low-budget dramas.<br /><br />Everything about this movie is classic B-style. The actors deliver their lines as if reading them from cue cards and the lines themselves should be set on fire and left burning in some rotten Hollywood alleyway. The film is called "Honor," but there was no honor in making this film. It was simply a waste of money, and spending wisely is something I consider to be honorable.<br /><br />Go see Felon instead. The fight scenes and situations are more real. | 0neg
|
Wow, I knew this film was going to be bad but not this bad. Spoilerific comments ensue.<br /><br />Roddy Roddy Piper is sickly sweet retired cop (cliche!), helping out everyone - smiling like a post-op lobotomy patient through-out and lamenting over his dead son. His adopted son returns from Armed Forces "Special Ops" and because he's "seen things" - portrayed by clenching his teeth if anyone mentions anything about the past. Time to clean up the streets from another guy who once knew Piper and his dead son (who the bad lad killed) and his adopted son.<br /><br />Oh, the love interest is a pretty young lady who decides for no reason that she wants to jump the bones of the ex-Army bloke. This happens in about 2 minutes of 1 scene.<br /><br />The action could have saved this film, but it's even worse than the storyline and acting. It's all been done before, it's all been done much much better (Ong-Bak is a prime example). This is the worst film I've ever seen - and I've seen Waterworld, twice.<br /><br />Erm, the film is called HONOR (Spelt Wrong for the Americans) and the tag line has "from the makers of Bloodsport and Kickboxer" - check out Director David Worths other films and you'll soon realise why they put these 2 films on there, even though they are over 10 years old. Such classics as "Shark Attack 3: Megalodon" - says it all really.<br /><br />I'll give you £10 if you don't go to see this film.<br /><br />PS - Apologise for not know character names, tells you something though. | 0neg
|
Absolute garbage, worse fight scenes than a 20 year old van damme movie or American ninja etc.<br /><br />Truly dire acting, not a skill in sight in the entire movie its like a cast of wooden sculptures.<br /><br />Watch it just for how truly bad this film is, it may have been acceptable in the 80s but this is a 2006 movie, i don't have much love for this movie as it wasn't born in the 80s.<br /><br />If you like real fight movies then check out tony jaa in ong bak and the protector, those are proper martial arts films.<br /><br />have a laugh and watch this today you may see the unintenional humour at how grim it is. | 0neg
|
I have not yet seen anyone slate this film and i think i may be the first.<br /><br />It was awful. I actually didn't watch the end of it. It was like watching a boring soap or a really good one (all soaps are crap). The actors were poor and storyline was bad. The person who rated it 10/10 has no idea what he is on about. The script was awful. 2 People was in an angry conversation together involving threats and you expect the good guy to say some thing really good and beat the crap out of him but no. He says "If you do that ... I will hurt you" Hahahahaha. If comedy is your thing, watch away. Please do not watch this film because ... It's CRAP!!! <br /><br />Summary: Poor acting, bad fights, bad script.<br /><br />Don't watch! Of course this is in my opinion. | 0neg
|
I'm a big fan of Italian films from the seventies, and I wouldn't hesitate to list the beautiful Barbara Bouchet among my favourite actresses of all time, so I did go into this film with some hopes. However, it soon becomes apparent that this is a largely pointless film that isn't going to go anywhere. Clearly nobody would go into this expecting much more, but the fact that this is pointless gets more annoying when you consider that it's also rather dull and none of the characters are interesting. As the title suggests, the film focuses on a 'rogue'; in this case one that steals, womanises and smuggles stuff. That's basically all the plot that this movie has. The film does have a real 'seventies style' to it and the idea of it all being very carefree gets across well. It sometimes seems like directors Boro Draskovic and Gregory Simpson were trying to put across some sort of point, although whatever that point is doesn't come across very well. Seeing Barbara Bouchet on screen is always a pleasure, and that is the case here too; she's definitely the best thing about the film and the sequence in which she hangs out of a car naked is the best part of the film. Overall, The Rogue will probably have some appeal for people who love the seventies style, but unfortunately it doesn't have much else to offer. | 0neg
|
Wow this movie sucked big time. I heard this movie expresses the meaning of friendship very well. And with all the internet hype on this movie I figured what could go wrong? However the movie was just plain bad. It was boring and the character development was never there. Space Travelers was also a horrible movie, if you didn't like that movie there is no way you will like this. | 0neg
|
May I please have my $13.00 back? I would have rather watched "Hydro- Electric Power Comes to North America". Again. This is a movie with one voice. The same voice, which comes out of every characters mouth regardless of age or gender. To listen to that voice again I would have to charge at least $150 an hour. And I don't take insurance. It was eerie watching Will Ferrell morph into Woody. But I don't think imaginative casting is enough. One should wait until they have a story before they bother making a movie. Unless he's just doing it for the money. And if that's the case why not just reissue an All-Rap version of "What's up Tiger Lily?" | 0neg
|
Woody Allen, when at his best, has one of the sharpest pens around. He can make an acute observation and wrap it around a punch line like nobody else. However, when he's at his worst his movies can stench of pretentiousness. Unfortunately, "Melinda and Melinda" has this stench from opening to closing. The set up is one of his more intriguing ideas in a while. Four friends sit in a restaurant discussing whether the essence of life is comedy or drama. To help settle the argument, one man relates the beginning of a story and asks the two other men arguing (one a comic playwright, the other a dramatic playwright) whether the story is a comedy or a tragedy. The two men then continue the story and the movie plays out the stories that they weave. Now, when I first heard about this film, my understanding was that they tell the exact same story, the genre (comedy or drama) only changes by how you look at it. Now that would have been interesting. However, the stories only share one main element and a few side elements. They are entirely different stories with major plot differences. The drama is so stiffly scripted and pretentious that it can only really work as self-parody. If this was the point, then it failed because these elements prevent the audience from feeling any emotional investment in any of the characters. The comedy is the story that has moments of success, but they are still short and fleeting. Will Farrell is obviously meant to be the stand-in for Woody, but he could have played this character so much more believably without adding Woody's stutters and hand-ticks. Woody is the best at being Woody. When someone else tries, they're not playing a character, they are modeling a recognizable actor. This type of thing only pulls the audience out of the story.<br /><br />My favorite Woody Allen movies make me leave the theater a little bit lighter in spirit than I walked in. This one made me wish I could get my money back. | 0neg
|
And how many actors can he get to stand in for his own neurotic, compulsive uber-New Yorker persona? In this film Woody is played by Will Ferrell in what is mercifully less a direct impersonation than the one Kenneth Branagh did in "Celebrity." It's an annoyingly repetitive story now: nebbishy, neurotic man with a wife or girlfriend falls madly in love with a shiksa queen upon which he projects all manner of perfection. Everyone lives in perfect gigantic apartments in great Manhattan neighborhoods, everyone constantly patronizes expensive, exclusive restaurants during which all the characters relate fascinating anecdotes and discuss arcane philosophy, there is always a trip to the Hamptons during which the nebbishy main character spazzes out about sand and physical exertion and possible exposure to diseases, and then of course, said main character feels guilty about his lust for the shiksa queen but pursues her anyway, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing, etc.<br /><br />This a tired formula, and proof that Allen isn't really a great film artist at all. He just seems like a dirty old man with the libido and emotions of a 20-year-old who is intent upon telling the same boring old stories again and again. | 0neg
|
I am so disappointed. This movie left me feeling jipped out of my time and mental energy. Here was the quintessential Woody Allen film all over again: the neurotic upper-class Manhattanites debating whether or not they will cheat on their spouses. Woody, I've seen these characters already, I've seen the storyline from you ten times already. Where did your creativity go??? You need to open your eyes and look around you. The world has changed dramatically since Annie Hall - and you need to change along with it.<br /><br />There are far more interesting and funny scenarios to which you can apply your brand of angst and neuroticism - why not try them out instead of rehashing the same old slop over and over and over again.<br /><br />When I hear that Woody Allen has a new project coming out, it does nothing for me - because now I've come to expect his old standby: the couple who are growing tired of each other and end up cheating. Depressing and same old, same old.<br /><br />If Woody wants to win his fans back, then he has to understand that our sense of humor and intelligence has to be stimulated - not insulted. | 0neg
|
If I accidentally stumbled across this script in textual form i would read it and maybe laugh. I would not, however laugh at the points in the film where the director would seem to want me to laugh. Although I am still not altogether sure where these are. I don't care if this is Woody Allen, this writer cannot write dialogue, or at least he cannot knowingly write dialogue then draw performances from actors capable of drawing laughter from even the most ticklish of clowns. For example:<br /><br />(paraphrase) "I'm an art historian, i'm looking to get a job in an art gallery." <br /><br />OK, so it states the fact but honestly, do you know of any art historians who would say that? How would you answer? <br /><br />"Really? An art gallery? who would've thought it?"<br /><br />The entire script is littered with the kind of tawdry quasi-intellectualism that i would not have expected from such a respected character writer. I admit that I have no knowledge of Allen's other work and, judging by this one i don't want to start learning. The characters are loathsome without exception, an attempt to illustrate that we all suffer from the human condition? Or really really poor character writing? You be the judge. | 0neg
|
I couldn't wait to see this movie. About half way through the movie, I couldn't wait for it to end. All of the (white) actors were delivering their lines like Woody Allen had just said, "Say it like this..." Then they said their lines on screen like they were trying to imitate Woody Allen. It was so annoying. We all know how Will Ferrell really talks, and he doesn't stumble over his words like Mr. Allen. The comedy portion of this film was just as boring as the tragedy and definitely never funny or even entertaining. I must admit that I have never been a major Woody Allen fan, and this movie definitely has not converted me. I think that his writing was just as bad as his direction. This movie will go down as one of the worst 10 movies I have ever seen. | 0neg
|
Woody Allen has lost his ability to write dialogue or characters that are clearly distinguishable from each other. This is the case with "Melinda and Melinda," where all the characters speak with Allen's generic pseudo-sophistication and have problems and points of view that are not relatable to anyone outside of a four block radius of where Allen lives. They also share the same curious condition of being able to afford multi-million dollar Manhattan apartments that appear to have been designed by professional decorators regardless of their financial situation or what they do for a living.<br /><br />The only character who exists outside of this dull mindset is Will Ferrel as the obligatory Woody Allen surrogate. Although he does not simply come off as merely doing a Woody Allen impression (like Kenneth Branagh in the god-awful "Celebrity"), Ferrel lacks the charm or charisma that the real Woody had when he was playing the part himself in his best movies.<br /><br />The end result is another in a string of self indulgent bores from a once-great filmmaker who has been trading in on his former reputation for years. | 0neg
|
For a comedic writer, Woody Allen really lets the paying viewer down with this meager attempt at character development. There are a few entertaining moments, but no more than one would have listening to their dryer tumbling tennis balls.<br /><br />Will Ferrell wastes his time in this movie which fails to showcase his usually funny delivery. Amanda Peet did well, but again, didn't have the room to move in this otherwise corpse like movie. The movie is so heavy and dull that it cannot be carried but if it were carried, Radha Mitchell did it. <br /><br />If you enjoy movies that go on and on in one scene and don't really accomplish anything but to show that their writer can write a few lines of snappy dialogue on occasion, then you'll love this movie. | 0neg
|
I've always been a great fan of Woody Allen and always will be for most of what he did in the past, but only a blind lover could ignore how dull, meaningless, pretentious and most of all horrendously acted this movie is. A vacuous mental masturbation based on inconsistent grounds. And what a disastrous idea to artificially recreate a presumed "actor Allen-clone", that is putting into Will Farrell's mouth and gestures what Allen would have done in Farrell's place had he been 30 years younger. The outcome was obviously ludicrous. And not to speak of the dialogues... what was intended to be philosophical reflections turned into an involuntary mockery of intellectual pondering, unaware of its comic effect. How sad... | 0neg
|
Possible spoilers.<br /><br />Although there was some good acting - particularly Chloe Sevigny, and Radha Mitchell in the comedy half - this simply was not an engaging film. The segues between the comedy part and the tragedy part were awkward or sometimes not obvious. This viewer was initially confused by the fact that the supporting cast differs in the two halves; I thought with the way things were laid out in the opening scene that the people surrounding Melinda would be the same people, just reacting differently (more of a "He Said, She Said" premise). However, what we have is two totally different stories and two totally different women, both of whom happen to be played by Radha Mitchell.<br /><br />The two playwrights in the opening scene - the comedian and the tragedian - supposedly take the same premise and go from there, but the two stories are only tenuously related. They do little to support the topic of discussion, which is that almost anything can be looked at as either comedy or tragedy. Nice cast, but a disappointing film. | 0neg
|
I've seen my share of Woody Allen's movies, and while they're not always great, you can usually be sure you're going to be entertained. Probably the last really good ones were Bullets Over Broadway ('94) and Mighty Aphrodite ('95) - since then the ones I've seen have been patchy but watchable. And so when I was invited to see the new Woody Allen movie Melinda and Melinda, which I wasn't even aware had been released yet, I went along happily. I hadn't really heard much about it so I hoped I would be pleasantly surprised.<br /><br />What I got was definitely the worst Woody Allen movie I've seen. The premise is over-explained, the cast is terrible, the script is slow and lifeless. Too many scenes said nothing and yet were stretched out, I assume to fill out what would have otherwise become a 15 minute short film.<br /><br />I don't mind the concept behind this film - two directors discuss how a simple situation could be interpreted as a comedy or a tragedy, and obviously the film proceeds to show us that, by playing out both scenarios. The problem is neither of these 'two films' are any good at all. The comedy isn't funny and the tragedy isn't very tragic. It seems like Allen came up with a good idea but then ran out of steam, or time, to actually complete the film.<br /><br />The general level of acting is notably bad also - Will Ferrell is the only one who brings anything to the table, and it's basically a Woody Allen impression. Previously good actors like Chloe Sevigny just come off as annoying, and the worst of the bunch is Radha Mitchell as Melinda (which is a shame, because her character is in nearly every scene!).<br /><br />To be fair to the actors, the script they are working with is lacking if not non-existent. Definitely a long way from the Allen we know and love from classics like Manhattan or Annie Hall. | 0neg
|
Woody Allen has made some of the greatest comedies ever and I would seriously consider saying that Annie Hall is the greatest movie ever but if I really think about it I will probably think of one or two that are better, but it would be hard. He has had of course some films that aren't quite good but not that bad either like Manhattan Murder Mystery and Sweet and Lowdown but he has never before had a film quite as bad as Melinda and Melinda. Not quite so tired and so unfunny, his films are usually witty and hilarious but how did this happen, is it still our good old Woody? The plot runs around four friends who are having dinner together. Two are play writers and one of the others mentions a funny story that happened to a friend of hers. It is about a young woman who bursts in on a dinner party unexpected. We never hear the rest because the two play writes start to debate whether it would make a better comedy or tragedy. Than we begin to see the two points of view. Both center on this woman named Melinda who is having trouble both with drugs and with her ex-husband. In the tragedy she is an old family friend who after attempting suicide decided to show up at her old best friends front door for no apparent reason. The comedy is about Melida who stumbles in on the dinner party after popping 28 sleeping pills. Both go on a wild whirl wind of events that never really make sense or fit together, or make you laugh more than once or twice. There are some nice performances by Radha Mitchell and Will Ferrell but they can't fit it together on there own. They cam't stop it from sinking farther down than most of the other films this year. | 0neg
|
Utterly pretentious nonsense. The material is dull, dull, dull, and most of the cast wouldn't even have made understudies in Allen's earlier films. And to have to listen to the unfunny Will Ferrell do his Woody Allen imitation makes me loathe the second-rate (though mysteriously popular) Ferrell even more. It appears that the morose 70-year old Allen should have knocked off work when the clock rang in a new century.<br /><br />I truly tried to get involved in the film, but it was just impossible; my snyapses couldn't fire that slowly. So, rather than doze off and kill the afternoon sleeping in an upright position I got up, left my wife and daughter in the theater, and went out to the car where I had a really good book to re-read (George Bailey's great tome of 30 years ago, "Germans.") The day turned out pretty well after all, no thanks to Woody. | 0neg
|
I will probably always go to see a Woody Alleb movie, as one never knows when he just might make a real return to his past greatness. Just one or two great moments or lines could make it worthwhile. sadly however this film just does'nt make it on any score. Saying thar actually makes me sad and even a little guilty. I'm sure my reaction is much like a lot of other fans of Woody, but what can one say? It's probably time for him to concentrate on his Clarinett, which in my opinion, he is rather quite good. Saying all of this, I'll still probably go to any new film Woody may come out with in the future. There's always hope and I'll continue to love and respect The WOODY!! | 0neg
|
This movie stinks! You will want back the two-plus hours it takes to get through it. Sliding Doors, w/ Gwyenth Paltrow and directed by Peter Howit, did what Melinda & Melinda tries to do much much MUCH better. That movie was clever, witty, and well-acted. I cared about what happened to both Gwyenths -- or rather the characters she played -- and the performances by supporting cast were fantastic.<br /><br />Where as Melinda & Melinda is tiresome, the dialogue is contrived and I could have cared less about any of these people -- least of all Melinda. One Melinda is so dysfunctional -- her first glass of wine is at 10 a.m. -- and so melodramatic she is laughable, and not in the comedic sense. The 2nd Melinda is fine, but forgettable.<br /><br />Woody Allen's previous ensemble movies worked because, I'm guessing, he spent time on the screenplay and the actors were talented. One piece of trivia for this movie is that he wrote this screenplay in two months: you can tell. And while Chloe Sevigny is talented -- those around her are not, not enough to be a whole presence. The movie ends up being Chloe Sevigny and a bunch of other people you know you've seen in other movies but can't quite remember which ones.<br /><br />Sad, very sad. | 0neg
|
this movie is just an excuse for the writer to make a film out of 2 failed scripts.<br /><br />its characters are just an assembly of characters with cliché tragic or comic attributes the sum total of which is neurotic dialog like only woody Allen could write. woman love this because its like looking in the mirror so they will enjoy this film probably<br /><br />this movies was not enjoyed by me however because there was no car chase and also the film didn't have any fights. there was also no drug lords or gang bangers. Not to mention a lack of snakes. This film had no snakes. Not my cup of tea and maybe not yours ether so think about what I have said before you find yourself watching this film.<br /><br />Unless of course you resemble a female have weight issues man issues enjoy sex and the city and ally mcbeal then this is meaningful for you. | 0neg
|
Well I'm blowed, a Woody Allen film that I walked out of after half an hour (I'm aware of the moral fragility of commenting on a film of which I've seen less than half, but I hope you'll understand why). Basically, it became apparent very early on that we were going to be patronised from the screen with: a script that set out its conceit as if with bullet points; a cast that were all trying to be characters from Hannah and Her Sisters (with the exception of Chloe Sevigny), and were badly directed into doing so; and a camera that sat around portentously, only for there to be nothing to film but chat and the actor delivering it. Drama? None; it's partially pre-narrated, but the action does nothing to develop a dramatic situation.<br /><br />Maybe I did leave too early in this case, but by then I'd decided against another hour and a half of one-liner-Allen clones. The script has its funny moments I went almost entirely on the back of Will Ferrell's excerpts in the trailer (trailer-hooked again, doh!) but there's little pace to let them fly off nonchalantly, as is best. Worse than this there's no fluidity. Saying this film's wooden makes a forest look like a jelly: the opening café-bound discussion being the most abject case-in-point. The only thing that should be done by numbers is potted reviewing 2/10. | 0neg
|
Perhaps I'm not a sophisticate. This and Closer are two of the more supposedly cerebral films I've seen recently, and both suffer from exactly the same problem to an excruciating extent. The dialogue is false false false. Nothing that comes out of anyone's mouth seems remotely believable. Perhaps the way this film is set up that's the way it's supposed to feel, but it was unwatchable. And boring. I walked out after 20 minutes of tedium.<br /><br />I'll stick with Sleeper and Bananas for my Woody Allen fix. If I ever come across this on the teevee, I'll turn over and try to find an episode of Quincy instead. | 0neg
|
I picked this up at the video store because of Tarantino's recommendation ("If you don't like (this), go f&^% yourself!") on the box... seemed like a ringing endorsement.... I was expecting something a bit more like "Death Proof"... not much actual violence in this one tho, or plot, of character, or dialogue. <br /><br />Look at the poster. It's all there. Stunts, and rock. It goes back and forth. A week or so in the life of an LA band that does a crappy magic show, at a level that you'd maybe see in one of the lesser casinos off the Strip, and an Aussie stuntman new in town finding his feet... They work, they meet girls, they party. End of story.<br /><br />The band obviously needed all that stuff because they are frankly second-tier, and playing a style that was already dated in 1978. It has to be said that the stunt bits in the film are genuinely spinetingling - that Aussie fellow really is something, and the film seems largely motivated by love and respect for the "art". I hung it there to see what crazy thing he'd do next. Just wish he could have found a better vehicle. | 0neg
|
East Palace, West Palace reminded me somewhat of The Detective, with Frank Sinatra in the role of the cop, and William Windom is the boy. It's a progressive film for China, I guess, but it also perpetuates myths about the femininity of gay men: much is made of Chinese myths in which men take on female roles. The movie focuses on an effeminate man who wants desperately to be dominated and hurt by a macho guy. He cruises the park without fear--he hopes to be taken into the stationhouse by the officer. And that in fact happens. Then he tells the officer his entire life story while being subjected to mild torture: made to squat for a period of time, handcuffed, slapped. This is what the gay man wants, and, implicitly, the gay man is challenging the cop's self-image as a manly man. The story's about the gay man's life (which include flashbacks) are tolerable, but when he starts describing old Chinese myths and dramatic works, the movie becomes unbearable. It becomes a cry of pity for China's gays, who only want to fulfill a traditional role in Chinese society. Sorry, I can't relate. | 0neg
|
This is the kind of movie i fear the most. Arrogant and Irresponsible, it presents a sketch of the colombian conflict so cliched and dumb it represents an insult to all Colombian people. The performances are godawul, from Grisales (her naked scene is absolutely pitiful), to Bejarano, to Fanny Mickey (who looks right out of a Tim Burton nightmare), to Díaz, who makes a notable effort to bring life to a character so one-dimensional, so cliched and so badly written all he´s left to work with is a mustache. Not to mention the gratuitous ending, a gore fest so cheesy that it would make Ed Wood cringe. It fails in all ways, cinematography, art direction, costumes, makeup, editing, and most of all directing, Jorge Alí Triana has always been a lousy filmmaker but at least his previous movies had some dignity. I can't say anything good about this waste of money, except that i hope Colombian filmmakers learn a lesson about honesty, integrity and responsability from this mean-intended fiasco. | 0neg
|
All of David Prior's movies are terrible on all counts: bad writing, bad acting, bad cinematography, no budget (the director's brother is usually cast as the male lead). But they all have incredible entertainment value because of their unintentional hilarity. The plot of almost every David Prior "film" (as I like to refer to them) is basically the same. Manly all-American commandos team up to blow up Communist baddies. But unlike other Cold War-era garbage such as Red Dawn, Prior's movies are actually funny because of their over-the-top premises and acting. The best part of Jungle Assault is the scene in which Becker (or was is the other dude?) is being summoned by General Mitchell for a top-secret mission in South America. The funniest line in the movie is then delivered, something to the effect of "this is my roommate, I trained him well". WHAT. You trained your roommate? And apparently this is going to be their solution to avoiding eviction.<br /><br />If you can find these gems on video used anywhere, BUY THEM. They are all funny and even funnier after a few beers. Watch them with a group of your friends for a true MST3K-style experience. So far my friends and I have managed to get a hold of Night Wars and Aerobicide aka "Killer Workout". But the one I recommend the most over them all is Final Sanction, with the freakish-looking Robert Z'dar. | 0neg
|
Imagine the worst A-team episode Add even more bad taste Remove humor and you might get an idea of how despicable this movie is ! Looks like a teenager stole Daddy's Camcorder and filmed the explosion of his little sister Barbie model house. Pathetic. | 0neg
|
This one features all the (bad) effect of Prior's cheap-o movies, but is so overtly racist, nasty and unpleasant that it is difficult to give this piece of dreck any redeeming feature. Unless you plan to enlist in the Marines, skip this one. Oh, and even if you do, avoid it at all costs. | 0neg
|
Updating of the Bliss theme is merely the latest in a lengthening queue of bad-to-average local comedies which appeal to the conservative cinema-going set. (For the record, this list, all of the films on which appear to be attempting a Castle-esque miracle, includes, Strange Bedfellows, Thunderstruck, Bad Eggs, The Honourable Wally Norman, Horseplay, The Wannabes and The Nugget. The only one to have worked has been Crackerjack.)<br /><br />Here, the performances never mesh, as John Howard doesn't even look like he's in the right film though perhaps that was the intention, as Franklin plays sleepy, conservative suburbia against its more interesting inhabitants. 20-year-old virgins who live with their parents are becoming rarer on-screen, but this is hardly a reason to watch the film. In fact, the only reasons may well be (1) Howard's bizarre but quite fun performance, and (2) the 'suburban nightmare' theme, which has run through Somersault, Strange Bedfellows, Tom White, Alexandra's Project, Danny Deckchair, The Rage in Placid Lake, Traveling Light, Teesh & Trude, Swimming Upstream and Lantana, many of which are very good/excellent. Enter at own risk! May be one for people who titter at the word 'penis'. 4/10. | 0neg
|
It is a real shame that nearly no one under 30 knows the "over the top" writing of Michael O'Donoghugh- magazine articles and SNL skits that were genius for the time...and so it is a true shame that anyone who may take the opportunity to research his work will no doubt take the easy way out and watch videos- thus leading them to MR MIKES MONDO VIDEO. <br /><br />This movie has clever elements that never fully connect to the funny bone. The viewer experiences such things as cat diving/swimming with the man who thinks he's found feline happiness by hurling these kittens into a pool which the camera follows in slow motion and montage sequence. Then we are taken to an island to where all past fads are retired (hula hops, pet rocks, rainbow dread wigs etc.) Then we enter the music world (punk was a new variety of music at the time of this film) where "D" rate bar performer Rootboy Slim performs "boogie till you puke" in his own lazy style of dirt and eclectic sleaze. Now the real beauty of all this is the back ground music. In many different styles with many different instruments the sound of TELSTAR plays and replays- for those who don't understand Telstar was the first American Satellite launched into space and the theme was created to celebrate mans genius and triumph. MR MIKES seems to have been meant as a signal of societal decay ridiculous wastes. Now one thing the theater offered that the video release does not was a live performance of Sid Vicious (ex sex pistol not the wrestler) singing MY WAY. His version is very different than Sinatras as one might imagine but frankly I feel it is very much worth the listen...it's good! That is the sad part- in the VHS release Paul Anka refuses the rights of his song and the viewer is forced to experience 3 1/2 minutes of silence with an explanation rolling across the image of the singing dead sex pistol. <br /><br />I would give the theater release a 5 or 6 the video is closer to a 4 and now that so much is passé I can see where many people would give it a 3 or 2.5. If you want to see a good O'Donoghugh script watch SCROOGED...it is a better tribute to the mans insight and talent. | 0neg
|
I saw this movie in 1979, I was 17 or 18, when it was released. The theater was perhaps 1/4 full when the movie started. Ten minutes into the movie me and the friend who went with me to see the film were the only two people in the theater. The movie was really weird and had no plot or reason to its script and people demanded their money back. We decided to stay for the ENTIRE movie.... why endure such torture??... here's why. We wanted to be true movie critics... to have a standard to base all other movies on it is hard to justify saying you have seen the best movie (a 10)they always come up with something better. But, it is easy to be able to base all other movies off of the worst movie ever made (and this is it... a 1 at best). There may be other movies out there that truly qualify as a 1, but I have yet to see them. I now base all movies I see on a scale based on this worst....I AM A TRUE MOVIE CRITIC...he he. | 0neg
|
I actually saw this movie at a theater. As soon as I handed the cashier my money, she said two words I had never heard at a theater, before or since: "No refunds!" As soon as I heard those words, I should have just waved bye-bye to my cash and gone home. But no, foolishly, I went in and watched the movie. This movie didn't make ANYONE in the theater laugh. Not even once. Not even inadvertantly! Mostly, we sat there in stunned silence. Every ten minutes or so, someone would yell "This movie SUCKS!" The audience would applaud enthusiastically, then sit there in stunned, bored silence for another ten minutes. | 0neg
|
I looked forward to seeing this movie when it came out, since I was a huge SNL fan. When my boyfriend and I went to see it, the people coming out of the early show were yelling, "Don't waste your money!" But of course we had to find out for ourselves.<br /><br />While there were a few funny bits (Laser Bra 2000, Root Boy Slim), most of it felt like it could have been severely edited down to an amusing 1 hour show. It was pretty bad.<br /><br />When the opera singer came on, many people got up and walked out. This made me laugh, because I realized that O'Donoghue was just pressing people's buttons on purpose with this movie. Or else he was just insane. Whatever - you don't need to waste your time watching it, it's that bad. | 0neg
|
Mr. Mike was probably the most misanthropic comedian of all time, so I was interested to see what he'd do with total creative control over a movie. Sadly, it is unwatchable, though not because the jokes aren't funny--some (I won't say most) of them are, and in fact Mr. Mike did a good job translating his mentally unbalanced screeds into visual gags. The trouble is that the technical quality (sets, lighting, sound, editing, you name it) is so God-awful, the movie is intolerable. Some outfit called "PKO Productions" gets the producing credit, but it doesn't look produced at all; it looks more like Mike stole one of the cameras from the SNL set and made the whole thing in an afternoon. I realize Mike's goal was to torture the audience, but even that deserves some basic standards, such as the ability to actually see, hear or comprehend whatever it is that's supposed to be shocking. Still, the DVD isn't a total waste: it includes a eulogy for O'Donoghue by Bill Murray and three "Mr. Mike's Least Loved Bedtime Stories" from SNL. Plus, the "cat swimming" section of the movie is a great scene to be caught watching if you want to freak someone out. 3/10 | 0neg
|
If you enjoy the original SNL cast and shows then avoid this movie at all costs. When this first came out my friends and I waited in line for over an hour to get in to a sold out movie house. half way through the movie the theatre was 3/4 empty. We refused to leave thinking it would get better. When the movie ended we were the only ones left in the theatre. The movie lasted only one day in all theaters then vanished from sight. In interviews with "Mr. Mike" he refused to comment on this film. The film was an inside joke on the episodes of SNL that came out right after the films release and closing in one day. We all tried to contact "Mr. Mike" by phone and mail to get a refund but were totally ignored. | 0neg
|
I saw this cinematic wretchedness in a dollar theater with a friend in 1979 (back when the tickets actually sold for $1). This is the only film I have ever walked out on (with my friend, while the idiocy that is the "Laser Bra 2000" sketch was on screen). Evidently, my and my friend's reaction to the film was a common one. It is not that I found the film offensive (either as an 18-year-old or now), but rather that it is mind-numbingly stupid and patently unfunny, devoid even of the unintended humor that makes a Ed Wood film watchable. This is the real reason why NBC refused to air it, rather than a failure to comprehend Mr. Mike's "vision" (unless, of course, his vision was to drive the film's backers into bankruptcy).<br /><br />I remained surprised to this day that this film does not seem to have made any published "10 worst films of all time" list. It certainly makes mine. You have been warned. | 0neg
|
Why does this movie fall WELL below standards? Ultimately, the answer lies in the poor, humourless script. A slim/average looking Travolta (looking rather dapper in black I must say, even with a HUGE mullet) and Gross both act very well as two young-ish 'slick-dressed' but nevertheless dimwitted New Yorkers eager to open their own nightclub. Other than that, the rest of the film is just boring to watch. It is SO dull that it's really not worth knowing what happens in the film's climax on any level. Kelly Preston obviously exudes sex appeal and the sexually charged dance with her husband-to-be Travolta is one of the film's few pleasures. Charles Martin Smith is quite fun to watch as struggling KGB honcho "Bob Smith". Personally, I think the movie would have been better if the plot was altered a little so that the settings did not change from NY to 'Indian Springs, Nebraska' (which is in the former Soviet Union?)--you'll understand if you see the movie... Apparently, this movie was filmed in 1986 ready for a 1987 release. I guess Paramount stalled on releasing the movie until January 1989 because of the unbelievable plot. It was reported they deemed it "unreleasable". Nevertheless, this $6,000,000 film garnered a little over an embarrassing $163,000 in revenue as it was released only BRIEFLY in places like Texas and Colorado before heading straight-to-video. This is testament to the overall BAD quality of this movie. | 0neg
|
I thought this film would be a lot better then it was. It sounded like a spoof off of the spy gener, and the start of it reminded me of Pleasantvil, but this film came up short.<br /><br />The plot is just to ridiculous. The KGB and Soviet Union in Russia have started up a spy school to teach their spies' how to act like Americans, but the town they set up in it for training is a bit dated, so they grab two yanks from the US to spice things up. I don't know, but this seems just to out there. It gets really odd when next to no one in this all Russian town speaks in a Russian accent. Someone screwed up in the casting job.<br /><br />Also, for a comedy this is painfully dry. There is one, two funny spots tops, and they are nothing to sing and dance about. The film in the end will likely put you to sleep.<br /><br />And, as a twisted punch in the face, this film is so pro the US it makes me sick. The movie keeps on saying again and again, the US is God and Russia is the devil. This is the kind of smear campaign that was done against the Japanese in World War 2. It's films like these that makes everyone think that the US is full of itself.<br /><br />This gets a 4 out of 10, and I'm being kind. It should really get a one, but the dance scene was funny, but then again it dragged far to long to be really funny. | 0neg
|
If you're in the mood for some dopey light entertainment, this will pass the time. If you expect one jot of plausibility, don't bother. To me, the dance scene looked like it was exaggerated for comic effect; it didn't look especially hot or skilled. | 0neg
|
One of the five worst movies I have ever watched. And I'm not exaggerating. In fact, I recommend watching it so you can get the same feeling of incredulity as you might by watching Showgirls.<br /><br />Out of 400 votes, the movie gets a user rating of 5.3/10. But there is a disproportionate number of voters who gave it a 10/10, probably due to the message of the movie - nuclear weapons are the bane of mankind. Chuck Murdock is an all-star little league pitcher who gives up baseball because there are nuclear weapons. Soon "Amazing Grace" Smith is an all-star Boston Celtic who is inspired by Chuck's story and gives up basketball. Soon all sports leagues from the professional level to college to high school to little league dismantle in a world-wide protest. Later all the children of the world go on a silence strike. This inspires the President of the United States to meet with the Soviet Premier, who in time agree to eliminate all nuclear weapons in time for the start of the next Little League season. The movie ends with Chuck about to throw out the first pitch, with the President telling his new best friend Chuck not to worry about striking out every batter, as he hasn't thrown a baseball in a year.<br /><br />Somewhere along the line a nefarious underworld boss kills Amazing Grace. When the President finds out he is told that the FBI can verify the killer but will never be able to prove it. So the President calls the underworld boss ("But it's one a.m." "I don't care, get him on the line") and tell him that he is to resign from all company boards that he sits on and sell all stocks that he has. And to not get out of line again.<br /><br />Honestly, this movie was so crappy that I couldn't turn it off. It was on television from 2:30 am to 4:00 am, and I watched it all. I wasn't turned off by the anti-nuclear weapons propaganda. I was turned off by the implausible break down of all organized sports. I don't even understand why "Amazing Grace" Smith was killed. And with all these famous athletes becoming Chuck's friends, why the father was constantly upset with his son taking a principled stand. And there was the cliché moment near the end when dad tells Chuck, "I never told you this, but I'm proud of you." Cue hug. | 0neg
|
I spent eight years running movie theatres in the 80's and 90's. This was, by far, the worst film I ever showed to the public. One thing that made it so bad was that it put on airs of trying to be a great, inspiring film. Even the great Gregory Peck could not save this horrid piece of drivel from being far less than mediocre. Jamie Lee Curtis, in an early non-horror film role, demonstrated clearly that she had not yet learned to act (she's still trying, but it isn't getting much better).<br /><br />I'm sorry, and here's the spoiler, international nuclear disarmament is never going to happen just because it makes children afraid to play little league baseball! Even the shows on Nick and The Disney Channel are not stupid enough to try to make us believe that dreck.<br /><br />This is not worth the time you would waste watching it on cable TV. It is not worth the price of a movie rental; your dollar would be better spent on an extra package of microwave popcorn to go with the other movie you picked (because it can only be better than this). | 0neg
|
This movie is a bad memory from my childhood. This is one of those movies that they show kids on a rainy day at school when you can't go out for recess, and you'd rather be watching anything, ANYTHING else. At least that's what it was like when I was in elementary school. I just remember HATING this movie. Granted, I haven't seen it in 15 years or so, and they probably don't use it on rainy days anymore but I just want to warn everyone: You'd be better off using this to put your kids to sleep than entertaining them. Trust me, pick anything else. Even though the topic is kind of controversial, the plot is so tame and slow that I can't remember anything about it except that I disliked it so strongly that here, 15 years later, I felt the need to warn all of you against it. | 0neg
|
This was among the STUPIDEST and PREACHIEST of the anti-nuke films out of the 1980s.<br /><br />The idea that a kid and a basketball star could "change the world" is pretty far-fetched, given how many "children's peace marches" and "celebrity protests" there were and ARE.<br /><br />But the idea that the Soviet Union would agree to a TOTAL nuclear disarmament, because some apparatchik kids learned of a "silent protest" in the West, is ludicrous.<br /><br />What ended the Cold War? America's tough, dare I say "Reaganesque" stance and the internal failures of socialism. It was NOT the peace marches, the "die-ins" or films like "Amazing Grace & Chuck", "Miracle Mile", or "Testament". | 0neg
|
I can't imagine anyone would ever, in a million years, want to watch this movie. Not because it was one of the worst ever made (it wasn't), but largely because it's about 20 years old and oh-so-out of the mainstream. I was trying to find out where I saw an actor before and this popped up. So, yeah, a kid stops playing little league because he doesn't like nukes, this prompts major media attention and a quick resolution to the cold war. The end. A fantasy, to be sure, but one so cockeyed it would make John Lennon blush. Since terrorism has replaced communism as the -ism that scares the hell out of us, this movie really has no relevance, except as an (innaccurate) look back at those times. The writing, acting, and film craft are similarly undeveloped. The reason I rated it as highly as I did was because I watched this movie around 50 times while I was 5-6 years old and still have a little place in my heart for it, but I now realize that it doesn't quite cut mustard. So, if the law of large numbers holds true and someone eventually does decide to check out this movie, realize that there are much better ways to spend your time, but also much worse ones. (I will refrain from a John Q. tirade for now.) | 0neg
|
I saw this in the summer of 1990. I'm still annoyed by how bad this movie is in 2001.<br /><br />Implausible plot. You'd have to be a child to think this could happen.<br /><br />I'm just really annoyed by it. Don't see this. | 0neg
|
This film reminds me of how college students used to protest against the Vietnam War. As if, upon hearing some kids were doing without cheeseburgers in Cow Dung Collehe, the President was going to immediately change all US foreign policy.<br /><br />The worst thing is that, while dangerous, the concept of a policy based on if the USSR and US went to war it could mean the end of the world, WORKED. The US and USSR NEVER WENT TO WAR.<br /><br />Had we only conventional weapons, the notion of yet another war, a "win-able" war, in Europe and Asia was not unthinkable.<br /><br />Not that I think they should get rid of this movie. It should be seen by film students as a splendid example of "How NOT to make a film."<br /><br />It should be 0 stars or maybe black holes... | 0neg
|
I saw this in the summer of 1990. I'm still annoyed by how bad this movie is in 2001.<br /><br />Implausible plot. You'd have to be a child to think this could happen.<br /><br />I'm just really annoyed by it. Don't see this. | 0neg
|
I've no idea what dimwit from San Francisco came up with this stupid plot, but apparently they need to get off whatever drugs they are taking and put their analyst on danger money -- NOW.<br /><br />Yeah, this is a plausible story, if you regard the alien abduction sequence in "Life of Brian" as plausible.<br /><br />This film is little more than a leftist pipedream. Had the US and USSR give up nuclear weapons, the result would've been to eliminate the only real obstacle that kept the two from engaging in a war. Bad as Korea, Vietnam and other wars of the era were, they were "proxy wars" fought to keep the superpowers from a direct engagement.<br /><br />This film makes me think about how realistic it was when some group of high school kids would go on a hunger strike against nuclear proliferation. As if someone would say "Mr. President, some kids at Drastic High are not eating!" and Ronald Reagan would reply "My God! I'd better revise my Defense policy!" Right.<br /><br />Like this film? Wouldn't it be better if the Soviet Union would've collapsed because they could not support their massive arms build... wait, that happened! | 0neg
|
A film like Amazing Grace and Chuck is a perfect example of how the left in this country just doesn't get it. They never did. And liberalism continues to slip further and further into political oblivion.<br /><br />This film deals with a little league baseball star who decides to stop playing ball as a protest to the existence of nuclear weapons. The boy is understandably ridiculed until a bevy of professional athletes, led by former NBA star Alex English, join his cause. Not just a few of them join the cause. By the time his movement reaches its zenith, entire leagues of professional and college sports have to cancel their seasons since nobody will play any more. Just to move this review along, I'm prepared to grant them this premise. Even though it would never happen in a million years, I'll just imagine it could, then go from there.<br /><br />I don't quite remember how, but some type of agreement is reached, and the boy decides to go back to the game he loves in an incredibly sappy and ridiculous scene.<br /><br />Before criticizing the message of this film, let me just say that this film is poorly written, acted and directed. Even if one does agree with the boy's stance, it would be impossible to overcome how badly the film was constructed. And that's a shame since there are plenty of good actors that go to waste. (Peck, Curtis, Petersen). Alex English does as well as he could have with his character however, and I wish he would try to act in more films. Alas, it's likely much easier to find work in the coaching world of the NBA. One wishes Mr. English would teach more of these thuggish NBA types of today how to shoot the rock a little better. Alex certainly knew how to put the ball through the hoop.<br /><br />As far as the film's message in concerned, it's just wrong-headed. Plain and simple. All of those nuclear warheads tucked away in those missile silos out west PREVENTED WAR!!!!! It would be one thing for this boy and his flock to protest an actual war or the USE of nuclear weapons. These weapons were in fact never used, and that was the genius behind their existence. Neither side during the cold war was crazy enough to fire a single missile. Without these weapons, who knows what might have happened between the USA and USSR.<br /><br />The makers of this film obviously intended for kids in America to take up their cause and follow in Chuck's footsteps. Kids in America however are more intelligent than the left wing kooks who created this dreck. <br /><br />The film is worth only 2 of 10 stars.<br /><br />If you want to see a great film about the dangers of nuclear war, stick with Dr. Strangelove, instead.<br /><br />Mr. Newell, you are no Frank Capra! | 0neg
|
This sleek, sexy movie is a must-see. Only upon multiple viewings can one truly understand the uniqueness of this film. Personally I enjoy the narrator for his intelligent, no subject left untouched, style of narration. The introduction grips you right away, and holds you at the edge of your seat throughout the film. He provides wonderful insight into the world of the trainables and allows the audience to really 'connect' with internal horror this film exhibits. The script itself holds the movie together wonderfully. Not only for kids, but the elderly alike will gain a higher understanding of the trainables and the modern grasp that they have on the sexual experience. Ahead of its time and groundbreaking in cinematography, it surely defines the word 'masterpiece'. | 0neg
|
I love Seth Green. His appearances on THat 70s' Show is always worth watching but last night, I felt the show needed to overhauled. Four single young guys inherit a New York City apartment that most of us would die for. The grandmother must have been an heiress to have such space in the first place. So I felt the need for realism should have been brought out. Anyway the plot about four best friends getting this apartment was not believable. I would have been thrilled if they had to move in with one of their parents which would have provided great humor and dysfunctional about the show's set up. There did not seem to be much humor in it. I am only watching it because it falls before My Name is Earl on a winning Thursday night. I think they should go back, scrap this series, and start over. We need more family involved series. How about Seth and his friends move in with his wacky parents in the suburbs after a fire burns their place down. THey could have Dabney Coleman play the father and Christine Estabrook, play the mother and dysfunctional siblings. The list of possibilities with somebody like Seth Green are endless and the network is blowing it. | 0neg
|
Well it's not often that we in the UK have a film made about inner city life from the perspective of the Afro Caribbean community, the last example that I can remember was the underrated Babylon way back in 1980. So I had high expectations when I heard about Bullet Boy, a film that has been touted as the British version of La Haine! Well La Haine it is not! I agree that the use of dialogue and environment gives this film an authenticity that has been missed in other British films of late, but my concern is that this film predictably ends sadly.<br /><br />The film intelligently deals with the escalating problem of black on black violence that is sadly all to common in London, but I'm concerned that film makers now use type-casting in plot as opposed to characters which is equally as damaging. Saul Dibb had a great opportunity to make a film that could be both entertaining and inspirational to us all, but sadly missed and created a film that only reinforces the idea that to be a young black male in London the only future is violence & tragedy | 0neg
|
Over the last 20 years the majority of British films are about how horribly poverty stricken the UK is and how our youth doesn't stand a chance of a good life whilst they live on the mean streets of British cities. The British film industry is obsessed with the idea of 'broken Britain'. Trainspotting, This is England, Kidulthood, Football Factory, Kes and From London to Brighton.<br /><br />Bullet Boy is just another British movie added to that list. The main character expresses a desire to go straight yet he still insists on hanging around with dead beats who carry guns and fight with gang members over nothing. I was never convinced that he did want to go straight as there was nothing stopping him pursuing an education or a trade. In fact it would have been a breath of fresh air if he had of gone straight and we had a character who turned his life around. Instead he spends his time helping his friend trying to commit murder. I felt no sympathy when he is predictably shot by another teen at the end of the film, which is sad because at the beginning of the film I really liked the entire family and their desire for success. I believe the makers missed a great chance to show the world that success belongs to those who are willing to really strive for it (like the Pursuit of Happiness). <br /><br />I know the purpose of this film was to try and paint a realistic picture of what life is like for black teens living in working class areas of Britain but don't we already have enough films in the UK with that very same plot? Isn't it time these talented producers and writers give Britains youth something to aspire to and show them a better life is just around the corner?<br /><br />I applaud the makers of Bullet Boy for not loading the film full of mindless violence in order to try and get success through shock factors (like Kidulthood, Football Factory) but at the same time this movie offers nothing new to a long list of British films that are effectively dull and depressing to watch. There is no happy ending to this movie or any of the others I have mentioned. | 0neg
|
It's a bad, very bad movie.<br /><br />Well, for people a real realistic movie is a good thing. For me it is not. Life is also predictable, bad, nasty, trivial, senseless, sometimes. Maybe that's the reason for people say that this film is real.<br /><br />Too many common places: you're black, you're a criminal, you're doomed and cursed, whatever you do you'll end up by shooting or being shot by someone; don't let the kids play with the weapons, it could be dangerous; and then there are those who go to the church, and then they are good, very good...<br /><br />Before this one, I hadn't seen such a bad movie. That's perhaps the reason for I never noticed how important the photography itself is important in a movie. In this one, every scene shot in daytime, outdoor, is clearly and annoyingly blue. They didn't even care to correct the colour balance. Oh! I've "rated" more than 300 movies in this database so far, and this (3/10) is my lowest ever. | 0neg
|
I watched this movie last night and was a bit disappointed. A lot of the "time facts" were off. At the beginning of the movie, the grandfather made a comment to this grandson and his friends about how they felt when 9-11 hit. This movie was supposed to be taking place in 1994. Also, one of the grandsons friends was wearing an Eagles Donovan McNabb jersey. He hadn't even been drafted as of yet. The story line was good but the facts and actuality of the time frame was so far off base that it made the movie seem cheesy. My boyfriend is an avid reader of WWII books and memorabilia. I rented this movie hoping that it would be good. The acting was so-so. The dog was cute. But the way that this movie was carried out made me glad that I only paid 4 dollars to rent it as opposed to the 50 it would have taken me to watch it in a theater. I hope that who ever reads this understands that I mean no discontent to those who fought the war but the facts and time frame should have been a little more closely monitored. | 0neg
|
This movie had good intentions and a good story to work with. The director and screenwriter of this movie failed miserably and created a dull, boring filmstrip that made me feel like I was back in Mr. Hartford's 8th grade Social Studies class -- way back in 67.<br /><br />What a waste, will somebody please take this story and make a real movie out of it - the story deserves it.<br /><br />Every time a scene had potential, all we were left with were a few clichés, combined with black and white footage that they probably got from The History Channel to show the action. Shameful.<br /><br />Ossie Davis was the only bright light in this dull fest. The other acting was incredibly dull - it fit in with the movie well and whomever played the Captain set a new low standard for line delivery.<br /><br />However, if you are willing to accept all the numerous flaws in this movie and aren't concerned with being awed or entertained, but want to learn about the USS Mason, it is worth a watch. | 0neg
|
Full marks for the content of this film, as a Brit I was not aware that there was segregation in the US Navy during WWII. A very brave attempt to bring this fact to the world. However, the movie is pathetic, direction is non existent, the acting is wooden and the script is just one cliché after another. I can honestly say that this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I sat and cringed from the start until the end at the very poor way that this had been put together. This could have been a great movie, the story for many of us outside of the US was new, unique and also interesting. The sad fact of the matter is the way that it was put together. It is unfortunate that a true story like this, which could have changed people's attitudes, has been squandered on a low budget, badly directed movie. I only hope that some time in the future, one of the major studios will take this theme and do it justice. | 0neg
|
I will give it a 3 just because it showed history that we need to know about, to prevent it from happening again. I agree with the comments from the gentleman from UK. The movie was pretty terrible. All cliché, no real plot. Historical and technical inaccuracies abound. Look up the technical specs on DE 529, or any Everts class Destroyer Escort, and you will see what I mean. I now its black history month in the US, and Im going to be called a racist just for saying this, but the history of this ship is not that great. They did some escort work, chased a "submarine" that turned out to be a hulk that they rammed. Sorry, but black people did a lot more in WWII then this silly movie gives them credit for. This movie makes them look like whiners. Let the name calling commence, I can handle it. | 0neg
|
Working at a video store I get to see quite a few movies and on occasion I try to watch some of the not so big movies. Proud happened to be one of them. The initial idea of telling of the story of a primarily black crewed ship during WWII had some merit. However in less than 10 minutes of watching the movie you find out that the primary point of the movie was to tell about racial tension in WWII. The underlying story is about the ship, the crew and their exploits in the war. This primary point is hammered at you to the point of excessiveness all throughout the movie. I commend the men that served on the USS Mason for their triumph in the face of adversity and for the hardships that they endured. A movie should have been made focusing on the accomplishments these men did for themselves, the Navy and for their country and not making a movie whose focus is racism during WWII. | 0neg
|
This is a great story and was just the beginning of equality in the United States. (We are still working on it too.) However despite the fact this is true, it's still a movie and this is a movie site. I realize independent films have a hard time getting good actors, but wow. The only one even mediocre is the excellent Ossie Davis. But even he couldn't make up for all the actors (including the one playing him as a young man) absolutely atrocious acting. Granted the script was terribly cliché, but even then you have got to get some decent actors! I wouldn't recommend this to anybody because it is so poorly done in every category. Read some books about the true story of the U.S.S Mason, because they give these men the respect they deserve. | 0neg
|
As a WWII naval history buff, and someone who is not proud of this country's history of race relations, I was looking forward to seeing this movie. What a disappointing piece of schlock. I made it about 3/4 of the way through, but I should have turned it off at the sub attack scene. The idea that a U-boat would fire a torpedo at a DDE, as if there was a hope of hitting it, and then be able to "run away" from the DDE while submerged, is preposterous. And that's just a small detail. The whole movie was poorly written, poorly directed, and poorly acted. I agree with others on this board that this could have been a good movie. It's as if they decided that, since all those crappy WWII propaganda films were made with all-white casts, they needed to make one with black people. And as bad as those old movies were, this is actually worse. And it almost smacks of false advertising to headline Ossie Davis and Stephen Rea. It turns out they had very minor roles. I have to believe those two fine actors were embarrassed to be associated with this film. I'm done. I've given way too much of my life this crap movie. | 0neg
|
I had high hopes for this film. I thought the premise interesting. I stuck through it, even though I found the acting, save Helena Bonham Carter, unremarkable. I kept hoping my time spent would pay off, but in the end I was left me wondering why they even bothered to make this thing. Maybe in George Orwell's version there is a message worth conveying. If this film accomplished anything, it has inspired me to read Orwell's classic. I find it hard to believe his tale could be as disappointing as this adaption. If the film maker's message is "the mundane life is worth living", well then, they've succeeded. I would recommend this film to no one; 101 minutes of my life wasted. | 0neg
|
The British 'heritage film' industry is out of control. There's nothing wrong with filming classic novels, but why must they all be filmed by talentless nobodies? This film rips the guts out of Orwell's tough novel, turning it into a harmless, fluffy romantic comedy. 'Aspidistra' may not be Orwell's best work, but no-one who reads it can forget its superb depiction of poverty. Orwell emphasises not only the cold and the hunger, but the humiliation of being poor. In the novel, London is a bleak, grey, cold, heartless city, and Comstock prays for it to be blasted away by a squadron of bombers. But this film irons out anything that might be in any way disturbing, and creates instead a jolly nostalgic trip to charming 1930s London, in which everything is lit with shafts of golden sunlight, and even the slums of Lambeth are picturesque and filled with freshly scrubbed urchins and happy prostitutes. Comstock's poems about the sharp wind sweeping across the rubbish-strewn streets seem completely out of place in this chocolate-box world. Worst of all is the script's relentless bonhomie, ancient jokes, and clunking dialogue. It's so frustrating because Richard E. Grant is the perfect person to play Gordon Comstock, and the film is packed with great actors. But it's all for nothing. This film made me so angry! Britain's literary history is something to be proud of for its richness, complexity and power. And what do we do with it? We employ bland nobodies to turn it into soft-centred, anodyne pap for people who want to feel that they are 'getting some culture' while they drink their Horlicks and quietly doze off. | 0neg
|
In spite of sterling work by the supporting actors, and an intelligent script by Alan Plater, this film suffers from a fatal flaw - the lack of charm of the central character/actor. One of the characters describes Richard E Grant's character as "a whining little turd" and unfortunately this sums him up perfectly. There is nothing about him or his performance to make it credible that his girlfriend and upper-class publisher/friend would spend so much time and emotional effort on him. He is rude, arrogant, selfish, self-destructive and thoroughly annoying. The part called for an actor who can make you love him even when he is being a prate - a Ewan McGregor, for example.<br /><br />All of the witty satire on the class system etc was wasted, thanks to this irritating and thoroughly unlikeable performance. All I wanted to do was shake him and tell him to get over himself. | 0neg
|
this seemed an odd combination of Withnail and I with A Room with a View.. sometimes it worked, other times it did not. tragedy that they changed the name for the US release though.. Keep the Apidistra Flying is much better than the nothing title A Merry War. acting was okay, script was okay.. overall it was a mediocre film.. | 0neg
|
This inept adaptation of arguably one of Martin Amis's weaker novels fails to even draw comparisons with other druggy oeuvres such as Requiem For A Dream or anything penned by Irvine Walsh as it struggles to decide whether it is a slap-stick cartoon or a hyper-realistic hallucination.<br /><br />Boringly directed by William Marsh in over-saturated hues, a group of public school drop-outs converge in a mansion awaiting the appearance of three American friends for a weekend of decadent drug-taking. And that's it. Except for the ludicrous sub-plot soon-to-be-the-main-plot nonsense about an extremist cult group who express themselves with the violent killings of the world's elite figures, be it political or pampered. Within the first reel you know exactly where this is going.<br /><br />What is a talented actor like Paul Bettany doing in this tiresome, badly written bore? Made prior to his rise to fame and Jennifer Connelly one can be assured that had he been offered this garbage now he'd have immediately changed agents! Avoid. | 0neg
|
A terrible storyline (Amis at his worst), pointless and self-conscious 'decadence', obvious shock tactics and patchy acting make this film (rather like "Rancid Aluminium") embody everything that went wrong with the much-vaunted British film revival. The humour is, at best, limp, and the pretentiousness of the whole set-up (including some kind of "internet terrorist group" - ooh, how contemporary) really begins to grate.<br /><br />Final summary - a half-baked attempt to be 'edgy' that does no-one any favours. Still, it's always a pleasure to see Katy Carmichael on screen...<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
I am a great fan of Martin Amis, on whose book this film is based. Unfortunately the director has been unable to translate the book to the screen. The novel is thoroughly post modern and highly artificial in its wildly overblown characters and the disintegration of traditional plot line and character development. It is an hilarious examination of human greed, excess and emptiness by one of the most moral of contemporary British writers. The director of the film has completely missed the point of the novel. In his hands, the film screams along at breakneck speed, indulging in every known trick shot and 'odd' camera angle possible. It is like Ken Russel on acid, and suffers from that older director's self indulgence cranked up to a hundred. Not even the (brief) glimpse of gorgeous actor Christian Solimeno's penis was enough to save this wretched film for me. Abysmal! | 0neg
|
This film looked interesting; I'd read the book a number of years ago and it informed me that the feature followed the plot outline pretty tightly.<br /><br />Started watching it and almost from the outset it failed to live up to expectations. In fact, I didn't bother watching the whole thing... utter drivel - bad performances, bad acting and instantly dislikeable characters - that was the point of the film, I guess.<br /><br />Watching this film left a bad taste in the mouth and put me on a downer for the remainder of my weekend.<br /><br />Do not bother with this feature. | 0neg
|
Suffice to say that - despite the odd ludicrous panegyric to his soi disant "abilities" posted here - the director of this inept, odious tosh hasn't made a film since. Well that is excellent news as far as I'm concerned.<br /><br />Dead Babies has all of the bile of its creator, but lacks the wit and technical proficiency that make Martin Amis the novelist readable.<br /><br />When will the British film industry wake up and realise that if it wants to regain the status it once had it should stop producing rubbish like this and make something real people will actually want to watch?<br /><br />Avoid like the plague. | 0neg
|
A couple of days after writing about how garbage like MAD COWS and THIS FILTHY EARTH receive money while Ange , Duncan and Theo are totally ignored I had to sit through yet another British movie * that had me scratching my head as to why it received a single penny . Some people may claim that because DEAD BABIES is based upon a highly regarded novel it has an in built market but both THIS FILTHY EARTH and MAD COWS were also adapted from novels and they were an ordeal to sit through as well <br /><br />I had read the synopsis of the plot where a bunch of high class wasters go to a remote mansion where they're stalked by an internet cult but to be honest this isn't really how the story unravels and anyone expecting Friday THE 13TH meets THE SHINING is going to be bitterly disappointed since 90-95% of the running time is taken up with said characters taking drugs and discussing sex . And what hateful characters they are too . Not one of them is likable in any way and within minutes you'll be getting nostalgic for Stalin , Mao and Pol Pot hoping that next time someone embarks on communist democide they'll be successful in creating an egalitarian utopia . Anything that will signal the end of such decadent bourgeois meaningless that the hateful characters in this movie embark upon can only be welcomed <br /><br />Not content with giving us a movie where the plot is meandering and where the audience fail to connect with the characters the director continues to spoil things further by getting all clever and arty . No doubt that is to impress us so we will fall upon our knees and cry " Oh my god , what a wonderful director the way he bamboozles us with his highly artistic technique and only a worthless pleb will fail to appreciate what a god given talent this man is " . I'm sure the vast majority of people either screamed " How come my projects got turned down while crap like this didn't ? " or " WTF was the last half hour of this piece of crap all about ? " You might defend the movie by saying the original source novel was unfilmable and this makes the film unwatchable . I will agree that this movie is unwatchable <br /><br />* I know the IMDb classes this as an American movie but the style and faults with DEAD BABIES is uniquely British . Americans might think they've got things tough with Bush but we've got Tony Blair , not to mention DEAD BABIES , MAD COWS and THIS FILTHY EARTH . No wonder everyone is ashamed to be British in the 21st century | 0neg
|
I had the pleasure of viewing this movie early and I have to say I thought that it was going to be boring and wondered how could they ever improve upon the 1984 version of Bachelor Party starring Tom Hanks, which I thought was pretty good...I was right...In all honesty I thought it could have been better...Sure there were some funny moments but it just didn't seem to hit the mark with me...The acting was OK and the storyline pretty well follows the original but I think it could have been so much better...This movie I'd say is for teens and the young of heart; full of female bodies, alcohol and sex...It's just another typical run of the mill party movie that has been done over and over again. 4/10 is my vote for this one. | 0neg
|
I wonder how much this movie actually has got to do with the 1984 movie "Bachelor Party", starring Tom Hanks. Is this movie even an official sequel? This movie is lacking in every department and you're obviously better off not watching it.<br /><br />For a comedy this movie simply isn't good or funny enough. It relies mostly on the character's their stereotypical assessments, rather then the movie actually features some good, original and funny moments.<br /><br />Of course there also is very little story present and the movie nude breast than script pages. You just keep waiting for things to finally start off. There is a main plot line in it somewhere but that one is so terribly unoriginal and gets executed so poorly in the movie that it feels more as if it's something non-existent. I guess there even is a message and moral story in it somewhere but this again is so terribly unoriginal and poorly done in the movie that it simply does not work out.<br /><br />It's basically a typical teenage comedy, with lots of sex jokes and nudity, only without the teenage main characters, which makes the story all the more sad and tasteless. The movie makes some really wrong jokes, that are misplaced for any type of movie.<br /><br />I regret ever watching this.<br /><br />3/10 | 0neg
|
Now I recently had the viewing pleasure to watch the hilarious comedy Bachelor Party, one of my new favorite comedies, laughed until it just hurt type of movies. So I naturally wanted to see the sequel, hoping it would have the same laughs, but instead Bachelor Party 2: The Last Temptation is made by the American Pie generation where it's tasteless and defeats the hole purpose of the first film. Yeah, the first film has nudity, but it doesn't show in every single scene. Also the plot is exactly the same from the first, it's not always a complaint with me, but this could have been a little more original. The only thing is that I'm glad that at least no old actors from the original appear in this movie, because it would have been cheesy or really silly looking.<br /><br />Ron and Melinda are engaged, after only 2 months of dating, everyone is against it. Melinda has a rich family, but they're pretty happy with Ron, and Melinda's brother, Todd is scared that Ron will take his job. So they go out on a weekend to Miami for a bachelor party and Todd is going to make sure that he'll trap Ron into a picture that will make Melinda change her mind about the marriage.<br /><br />Bachelor Party 2: The Last Temptation has a couple laughs here and there, but over all fails to deliver what the first film accomplished. These guys, Ron's friends, were more obnoxious than likable, except for Seth, he was kinda funny. The only likable characters other than Seth is Ron and Melinda, everyone else just more or less gets on your nerves. You wanna watch this film? Just watch Girls Gone Wild, it's the same thing only it doesn't try to pretend that it's a film. Stick to the original Bachelor Party, that's the movie that's going to get you in tears of laughter.<br /><br />3/10 | 0neg
|
Recap: Ron is about to marry Mel. They are deeply and love and certain they are perfect for each other even though they met just a few months ago. Todd, Ron's brother in law to be is not so happy. He is afraid the marriage is a threat to his cushy job in the family business and decides to arrange Ron's bachelor party. But his real plan is to put Ron in a compromising situation, get evidence and break Ron and Mel up.<br /><br />Comments: Supposed to be a sequel to a comedy classic but it isn't funny at all. It is mostly a pubertal show and a juvenile excuse to show scantily clad women. Actually, in a way, it is almost impressive have many you can put in there, because they are everywhere. Unfortunately that is also one of the signs of a movie that can't support itself. It simply isn't good enough.<br /><br />It has three redeeming points though, or actually three actors that is worth a better script than this. It is lead actor Josh Cooke who actually manages to give an impression of some common sense. Sara Foster I know has more talent than to do movies like this, and Emanuelle Vaugier seem to have a lot more talent than this movie.<br /><br />What is suspiciously absent are good jokes. Actually, bad jokes are rather scarce too. It just isn't funny.<br /><br />3/10 | 0neg
|
This is the most cliche ridden and worst romantic comedy I have ever seen. Every scene is cringe worthy and the two lead actors - Corey and Danny are soo annoying. Corey is very dumb and naive and should have never listened to Danny's false promises.<br /><br />Neve Campbell and the killer from Urban Legend are the only redeeming qualities in this poor attempt of a film. Danny (Dean Paras) looks in his late thirties and the girl he's trying to bed - Corey looks as if she's still in college.<br /><br />Here in Australia, this film is called Too Smooth; there is nothing smooth about this film at all. 1/10 Avoid | 0neg
|
Having read many of the comments here, I'm surprised that no one has recognized this as basically an overlong remake of a Twilight Zone episode from 1960 called "Mirror Image," starring Vera Miles. Rod Serling did a much better job of creating an effective spooky tale in 24 minutes than Sean Ellis did in 88 minutes with this tedious snooze. A short piece can be effective with a mysterious and unexplained ending, but in a feature film, there should be a bit more substance and the story should make sense. Sadly, substance and sense are two things missing from "The Broken." Yes, it has some moments, but they are not enough to justify your time. Some further observations: although this is clearly a contemporary story, not one character in the movie has a cellphone! And even though a car accident is the event that gets the story going, there is never any reference to an insurance company, to the person who was driving the other car, or to the police who would have been required to do a report. My advice: skip this bore and watch the original instead! | 0neg
|
I read about this movie in a magazine and I was intrigued. A woman, who one day sees herself drive past in her own car. Well, I thought, this could be interesting...<br /><br />...but it isn't. First, the title. The Broken? The Broken...what? What is broken? The...oh, wait...I get it, the title itself is "broken"! WOW, clever! Unfortunately, this is virtually the only thing going for it.<br /><br />The premise is not that bad, but I think Kiefer Suderland did much better in 'Mirrors'. A cross between Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Mirrors, and a rather mediocre one at that. A more suited title would be 'The Boring', since it draws out every single scene for bloody ages. Or maybe 'The Confusing' since it doesn't explain anything at all, not in the narrative nor in the story itself, only some vague idea about evil copies and somesuch, dotted with cheap scares and scenes used to death, but nothing tangible. It's just messed up.<br /><br />On the other hand, the acting and the special effects are quite good, but then again, it's not a difficult role to act.<br /><br />After watching the movie twice, I still feel unsatisfied, a little confused maybe, and not in the E. A. Poe or Stephen King kind of way. Do yourself a favor, and don't watch this one. Simply put, there are better thrillers out there. | 0neg
|
This film is pure, distilled, unadulterated boredom. I knew nothing of it before I entered the dark room, took my seat. I was seduced by the "mysterious and suspenseful" blurb on the poster I suppose. Also, Lena Headey is nice and unconventionally sexy, and Richard Jenkins is always a reliable guy to have around, so the cast seemed reasonable. It may have been his name above the title that convinced me to go with this instead of whatever else was on. I should've gone to see Valkyrie for the second time instead.<br /><br />The thin plot revolves around Headley's Gina McVey, her boyfriend, her father, her sister and her sister's husband who for some reason are being stalked, in a very louche and unenthusiastic manner, by their evil doppelgangers who emerge from mirrors that mysteriously smash. There could be a great film behind this idea (not exactly an original idea, mind you, but still...) and in fact, if the filmmakers had shorn away all the supporting cast and simply stuck to Headey's character's story, The Broken could've made a reasonable 20-minute short. As it is, it is desperately unmotivated and boring, and terribly inconsistent.<br /><br />For instance, in one scene, a mirror smashes on its own in a room housing all the main characters; they look puzzled but quickly forget about it. In another scene, a mirror smashes in an empty room, and a doppelganger is visible as she "steps out" of the shards left hanging on the wall. So why did the first mirror smash if no creepy crawly was to come crawling out? Just for a little thrill? There are far too many scenes of the characters in the dimly-lit London flats, peering around corners cos they thought they heard something, but seeing nothing there and moving on. We begin to wonder, why doesn't this malevolent doppelgang actually ever want to try to scare them? Scare the characters and you have a chance of scaring the audience. But we, the audience, will need to start threatening each other, in the darkness of the theater, if we want to have any thrills during The Broken. By the way, once we've spent time with these evil doubles, we are totally bemused as to why anyone should be expected to be frightened of them - they just stand around, blank looks on their faces, perhaps totally harmless after killing their others.<br /><br />There are some nice moods and touches throughout, and I dare say director Sean Ellis could fashion a genuinely stylish and suspenseful mystery movie if he was to hire an imaginative screenwriter next time. | 0neg
|
Horror movie??really???? i cant believe how bad this movie was,what the point of this movie??? the movie almost 1h and 30 min and the first 70 minutes of it,is just lena walking around with this stupid look on her face after she had an accident....not much talking at all,not even much actions at all.. i have to say tho,the last 20 minuets it got little tiny action.. and was still stupid....... and the end oh my god,i don't know where to begin,it also end up with this stupid look on lena face lol.. don't get me wrong i love Lena Headey,i think she is great actress,but i don't know what got into her to do this movie.. don't waste your time and watching it,because this movie has no story,has no acting ..and has no point...not to mention how slow this movie goes and it feels like you been watching it forever. | 0neg
|
I liked the initial premise to this film which is what led me to hunt it out but the problem I quickly found is that one pretty much knows what's going to happen within the first 20-30 minutes ( the doubles will come from behind the mirror and take over everybody).<br /><br />There is no real twist (which is fine) , but the final reveal doesn't make a great deal of sense either (how can she be racked with uncertainty and fear for the whole film, if she's an evil id from beyond the mirror?).<br /><br />Admittedly the scenes 'beyond the mirror' were chilling when they first appeared and the blonde's murder is also effectively creepy, but ultimately alas this seems to be a film in search of a story or a more engaging script, piling atmosphere upon atmosphere and over the top scary sound design for 80-90 minutes does not really cut it, in fact it gets quite dull. | 0neg
|
What an incredible fall for Sean Ellis.<br /><br />You gather a bunch of your friends at home, all hyped about the follow up work of Sean Ellis. You have an vague idea of the plot, no spoilers that could kill the fun, very high expectations.<br /><br />It is late at night, perfect atmosphere for a movie of this type.<br /><br />15minutes passes and you start telling yourself it is bound to pick up, at 25mins you start wondering if you should just go to sleep and save this for another time when you can fully appreciate the expected not existent subtle touches. Over the half hour mark you realize half of your your hyped up audience is already asleep and call it a day.<br /><br />A few days later when you exhaust all other material to watch you go back to this, in the middle of the day this time, hoping your mood will keep you awake this time. 10 minutes later you find yourself fastforwarding the unbelievably and needlessly long intermediate transitions and images. Any other stuff I would have given up already but there is cashback and its legacy. But that legacy can only carry you so long, this is a new level of boring movie-making, imagine a short story extended to a novel with just descriptions, this is what it is.<br /><br />Decent cast is wasted, there is no cinematography that leaves you in awe like cashback either. There are films that annoy you, there are films that lack certain aspects, or just cheesy, unfortunately this is just a waste of time.<br /><br />Final words, stay away. | 0neg
|
If the myth regarding broken mirrors would be accurate, everybody involved in this production would now face approximately 170 years of bad luck, because there are a lot of mirrors falling to little pieces here. If only the script was as shattering as the glass, then "The Broken" would have been a brilliant film. Now it's sadly just an overlong, derivative and dull movie with only just a handful of remarkable ideas and memorable sequences. Sean Ellis made a very stylish and elegantly photographed movie, but the story is lackluster and the total absence of logic and explanation is really frustrating. I got into a discussion with a friend regarding the basic concept and "meaning" of the film. He thinks Ellis found inspiration in an old legend claiming that spotting your doppelganger is a foreboding of how you're going to die. Interesting theory, but I'm not familiar with this legend and couldn't find anything on the Internet about this, neither. Personally, I just think "The Broken" is yet another umpteenth variation on the theme of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" but without the alien interference. "The Broken" centers on the American McVey family living in London, and particularly Gina. When a mirror spontaneously breaks during a birthday celebration, this triggers a whole series of mysterious and seemingly supernatural events. Gina spots herself driving by in a car and follows her mirror image to an apartment building. Whilst driving home in a state of mental confusion, she causes a terrible car accident and ends up in the hospital. When dismissed, Gina feels like her whole surrounding is changing. She doesn't recognize her own boyfriend anymore and uncanny fragments of the accident keep flashing before her eyes. Does she suffer from mental traumas invoked by the accident or is there really a supernatural conspiracy happening all around her? Writer/director Sean Ellis definitely invokes feelings of curiosity and suspense in his script, but unfortunately he fails to properly elaborate them. "The Broken" is a truly atmospheric and stylish effort, but only after just half an hour of film, you come to the painful conclusion it shall just remain a beautiful but empty package. There's a frustratingly high amount of "fake" suspense in this film. This means building up tension, through ominous music and eerie camera angels, when absolutely nothing has even happened so far. By the time the actually mysteriousness kicks in, these tricks don't have any scary effect on you anymore. Some of my fellow reviewers around here compare the film and particularly Sean Ellis' style with the repertoires of David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick and even Alfred Hitchcock, but that is way, way
WAY too much honor. PS: what is up with that alternate spelling; the one with the Scandinavian "ø" | 0neg
|
I give this movie 3 out of 10 because I have watched zillions of movies and I can tell clearly what an intellectual movie with a mind-teasing message should look like. Definitely, The Broken is not one of those movies. I have to admit that the movie made me think a lot trying to understand what the whole thing was trying to lead to and despite the explanations I've read in prior comments, they seemed only an exaggeration just to have one self in the intellectual league of people. the photo on the cover clearly shows that the Broken is the broken upper piece of the face which normally contains the brain. It's a clear message that once this part of the body is broken the rest will be deformed and lifeless. So, you start waiting on the movie characters to show their defected sides and this is not obvious in any of the scenes because the movie starts right away without any introduction to the characters and their lives before. Though we see the father holding a rifle when his children try to surprise him as if he is aware he has enemies but still this is not a very strong clue. Had the clues been planted more in the movie, one would have said about that it is a masterpiece indeed. But though the movie was so slow in pace, it was at the same time so empty with no metaphorical scenes at all. And the reuniting of the evil dad with the evil Gena at the end is a strong refuting evidence of the existential messages that some people spoke about in other comments. Furthermore, if Gena truly lives in the apartment as her brother tells her at the end, then how come she is the evil one? I bet I can defy any theory about this movie with so many questions that can only lead to one conclusion: This movie is a pretentious one and a waste of time. Obviously it shows someone trying to make out of a meaningless mystery something which is of no value at all. I am a huge fan of horror movies and specially slasher ones that some people call popcorn movies. Horror movies are not supposed to convey deep messages! They're supposed to uncover the beautiful mask of life and show you the other dark side of it which is the truest, I guess. Horror movies should have blood, screams, intensity, skeletons, body organs and parts. Because that is the real horror and it's never away from reality. I have watched almost all horror movies and I can prove that each one of them can be as real as the sunrising. Nothing is unreal as long as the mind had thought of. For instance, the horror movie "Train" with all the slashing and tensity of it and its similarity almost in everything with "Hostel", it speaks about a very real thing which is selling body organs illegally by abducting people in foreign places where no one would ask or search for them.<br /><br />And even if we considered the Broken a movie that has an existential message, it is still very poorly presented and the least scary. I prefer the addiction message presented in Requiem for a Dream which went beyond drug addiction to highlight the fact that any kind of addiction whether for sex, TV, safety/being pampered, etc... can be so destructive and it scared the hell out of me. And those who always criticize horror movies for being meaningless and very commercial, are usually just bunch of people who get scared easily and simply don't like this genre but this doesn't mean that there are fans of such movies and that they have a lot to offer to the viewer from adrenaline turmoils, ecstasy, leadership lessons (believe it or not!), entertainment to most importantly the face to face interview with the essence of life, as ugly and scary as it may seems, Death! | 0neg
|
Have you ever had a cool image in your mind that you thought it would be nice to be in a movie: Like seeing a detective peeking through the cracks of a broken fence of some abandoned house? Or seeing a woman walking down a street looking cold and intense and awfully alert? Yeah. Imagine stretching that image to a whole movie, you pretty much got the idea of Broken, though there's no detectives in this movie, I'm just using it as a visual example. But, the intense looking woman is here and she filled pretty much 99% of the screen time. I got nothing to complain about that woman, she's a perfect choice for this role.<br /><br />I consider myself a very open minded individual who can find enjoyment out of all kinds of artistic expressions and I can truly enjoy some really moody stuff. It would be really cool if I can frame one of the scene from this movie and hang it on the wall. Let's be honest here, the acting is superb. Some of the expressions on the actors face are what keep me watching.<br /><br />Now onto the problem of this movie. Beyond the mood, there's not much anything else here. The director basically took an obsession of an idea and ran it far beyond what it was worth. I don't consider it to be a spoiler if I say the obsession is "mirror". Let's face it, this singular idea is all over the bloody place and that's all the director got to work with. Granted, there are a few twist and turn here and there. If you paid any attention, nothing is going to surprise you in the end, obvious plot holes aside.<br /><br />Now, I'm not picking bones with this style of art since I enjoyed them most of the time. I still believe that we should judge an art base on the medium it uses to express whatever the artists want to express. Movie is not a piece of music, or a picture, or a painting, or even a poem, and certainly not just a cool image in your mind. It's all that plus a good story and character development. I consider the Lynch style of movie making cheating. It is irresponsible and cheap and a waste of the medium. We gave movies 2 hours running film time for a good reason. Therefore, we should judge it differently than judging a single frame of imagery such as a photograph or a painting.<br /><br />This movie is not completely Lynch style, thank goodness. It has a linear development and eventually came to a conclusion. It does not have much story or character development. It presented itself rather seriously with characters composed of common folks, thus distance itself from other fantasy stuff at least from the surface. It does not offer any explanation of the fantasy element nor did it ever attempt to build a coherent world around it. The oddity came from nowhere and seems rather isolated and accidental. Maybe the coherency remains in director's head but from what I can see he did not put much effort into realizing it on the screen.<br /><br />Where did he put his effort in then? It seems that he spent a lot of effort in building the mood and enhancing it with the music. The music often built up tension which eventually turn into a tease. Only in the later part of the movie the scare and tension materialized.<br /><br />In the end, I felt like: OK, I know what you are trying to say here but is that the point you are trying to make by spending two hours building up all these tension? It is rather irrelevant with who the characters are and what kind of life they have. And we are given very little about who the characters are. All we have is this circumstance that just took placed. Disappointing but I guess the director did not have much material to work with and it shows. | 0neg
|
No,<br /><br />Basically your watching something that doesn't make sense. To not spoil the film for people who actually want to this take a look at the flick I will explain the story.<br /><br />A normal everyday to day women, is walking down a street then find's herself driving by in her own car. She follows her and many events take place during that time that include her and her family.<br /><br />I specifically made an account to comment on this film, of how horribly written this was. The acting was great, the events were great, but the story just brought it nowhere - it could of been added to tremendously and be made into a worldwide epidemic. I'm not sure what the writer was trying to accomplish by making this, usually at the end of films most of your questions get answers but this film has you asking, What just happened and 1 hour 20 minutes just passed for nothing.<br /><br />Spoiler Starts__<br /><br />They had this area between 2 dimensions (ours and behind the glass) that would come into our world and kill us. It was not elaborated on all during the film, and you never know how it was happening or why it was or when it happened. Nothing gets explained during the film. The main character shouldn't of even been the main character. At the end of the film the guy who finally figures it all out and runs away (her sisters boyfriend) should of been the main character but sadly the movie ends 20 seconds after. <br /><br />I bought this movie for $10, threw it out right after.. don't waste your time. I really hope nothing like this is made again. | 0neg
|
You gotta wonder how some flics ever get made... this one decided to skip with the why among many other things and just wanders off beyond the moot. <br /><br />And yet you have a number of decent actors doing their best to pump some life into the story. The blue tint throughout the movie overshoots into 'yet again', which on its own would be depressing but here it's overkill. The idea that it's not a medical condition, not some house or gypsy or trinket curse but just something that for no apparent reason starts to happen to our protagonist and then to everyone else around her, just winds up being much like taking a big swig out of an empty mug. Some doppelgangers have super powers but others don't or don't know they do? It seems they're just as clueless as we are.<br /><br />It's a poor man's rip-off of "Invasion of the Body-Snatchers" with Keifer Sutherland's "Mirror" and "The Sixth Sense", were you to seriously botch those three together. | 0neg
|
this film really tries to hard. if your going to make a horror film, at least give it a reason to believe in to hook the viewer. <br /><br />you wait and wait through the film expecting for some grand explanation but it doesn't. instead it tries to be too clever ending and not revealing anything. <br /><br />what was the point of the movie ? where it's actually going ? and more importantly what the hell was going on . . . <br /><br />why were they there and how does it tie into anything? just another weak sci-fi horror. i love the fake reviews on IMDb saying how great it is by related press releases to bump the movie (either that or people have low horizons). it's not worth your 2hrs at all.<br /><br />i'm not saying the film is better than the fragile, but at least that gave you reasoning and why things happened and has an end result. this doesn't and it just waffle's on with tons of padding to make everything feel scary. this film is about as low as when a stranger calls. god that was lame too. <br /><br />big tip, if your gonna make a horror, make it believable with reasoning and explain to the viewer what's going on, so they have a hook into your story. because if there's no reasoning or believability then there's no firm hold on anything and it can't be scary. no disrespect to the cast or crew cause they did a good job. it's just the poor writing. | 0neg
|
THE BROKEN is part of the After Dark Horrorfest III. Not a slasher or filled with gore. Plenty of broken glass and mirrors in this edgy thriller from France and writer/director Sean Ellis. A successful radiologist Gina McVay(Lena Headly)inters a strange world as her life seems to spiral out of control. While attending her father's(Richard Jenkins)birthday party, the guests are stunned when a mirror crashes to the floor for no obvious reason. Things get really strange when she witnesses a woman that is the spitting image of herself driving down a London street in a car identical to her own. Gina sneaks to her doppelganger's apartment and finds a photo of herself with her father. She drives away and is involved in a head on collision. Then mysteriously her boyfriend is not the same; to be exact family and friends are not easy for her to trust. Is Gina beside herself? Is she in a parallel world? Her nightmares become more horrific...is she broken?<br /><br />Kudos if you can figure this one out...it won't be easy. Editing couldn't be any tighter. Lighting is questionable. Other players: Melvil Poupard, William Armstrong, Michelle Duncan and Ulrich Thomsen. | 0neg
|
Very unnecessary movie with characters that are acting so unsympathetically that I really didn't care who would fare the best (or was that the purpose of the film, to portray some smooth talking cold-hearted New York city folks?) No romance here, no comedy either. Acting is very flat and a very predictable plot. What annoyed me the most was this constant joking with quotes from classic movies. Man, can't you see that the more you quote, the less significant your own movie becomes? Try to be original yourself! A small budget is no excuse at all, first-time director neither. Crappy, crappy, crappy. No wonder it only cost me one buck... | 0neg
|
i'm being generous giving this movie 2 stars. the line about "have you even seen the wizard of oz" was the best part for me! with terrible writing and acting like displayed in this movie it's no wonder so many are taken in by worthless tv reality shows. do yourself a favor and get out of the house and hit a royals baseball game, your gonna be glad ya did! | 0neg
|
This was a cute movie until the ending. The ending was merely one more despicable effort to emasculate men and empower women at their expense. The girl refused to listen to reason and logic and used her passive/aggressive nature to control and impose her will on the guy who ultimately yielded his power and control over the relationship to her. It is not by chance that she was sitting behind the driver's wheel in the car as they drove away at the end after he had to beg her and plead with her to take him back. This movie is a victory for all women who think they should be in charge of all men and in control of their relationships with them. It was a despicable movie for that reason. | 0neg
|
That's a snippet of choice dialogue delivered by the evil, ballbusting lady assistant of a famous scientist to her prim maid just before she lures three incredibly dumb college girls to a mansion for behavior modification experiments. Meanwhile, at the local bar, people drink and dance to lame 80s rock songs. A biker punk has sex with a cycle slut on a pinball table in front of a crowd of people, then tries to rape the scientist's virginal daughter Jessica (Debra Hunter), who is in love with another biker (Dale Midkiff, from PET SEMATARY), who, in turn, is in cohorts with the assistant! Back at the house, the sorority bimbos swim, shower, change clothes and have sex with men from the bar. A small silver ball (part of the experiment) flies into victims mouths and turns them into drooling, killer zombies!<br /><br />If that isn't enough to entertain you, there's a hilarious theme song ("Nightmare Fantasy"), roller skating, some serious daisy dukes and a psychic hand puppet (!?) that warns "DANGER! DANGER!" just like the LOST IN SPACE robot and recommends hitchhiking as one of the best ways to pick up men!<br /><br />This filmed-in-Florida mess is so mind-numbingly awful that multiple viewings are recommended to soak it all in. And, hey isn't that NYPD Blue's Detective Jill Kirkendall turned CNN newscaster Andrea Thompson as one of oft-nude bimbos? Sure is! Supposedly this was started in 1982 and new footage was added later for the video release in 1985.<br /><br />Score: 1 out of 10 (and I mean that in a good way!) | 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.