text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
The Comeback starts off looking promising, with a brutal death scene by a mask wearing killer. The mask itself is pretty cool too, and looks almost identical to the one used in the 1990's slasher film "Granny". From then on the film is mostly boring. We get a few more deaths, which again are good, but there's not enough of them. The reason the deaths are so good is because they are frenzied and bloody. The story behind the film is actually rather interesting and would have worked very well had it not been so boring for the most part. <br /><br />I would avoid this unless you're a die-hard collector - there's not enough here to even make it an average slasher flick. | 0neg
|
Friday the 13th step over! There is officially a worse movie than your hateful series out there. I won this movie in a contest at college, and it was a waste of money even if it was free. Jack Jones stars as a truly awful singer whose trying to find some murderers or something. At least Friday the Thirteenth never bored me. I'd rather have my fingernails pulled than see this again. | 0neg
|
Gritty, dusty western from director Richard Brooks, who seems thoroughly engrossed in the genre while keeping all the usual clichés intact. Early 1900s horse race attracts a low-keyed cowboy (Gene Hackman), a suave gambler (James Coburn), a cocky kid (Jan Michael Vincent), and even a FEMALE (a surprisingly game Candice Bergen). Once the preliminaries are out of the way (with the predictable arguments over whether or not a woman should take part), this becomes a fairly engrossing entry, though one which breaks no new ground (it instead resembles something from Gary Cooper's era). Good-looking, if overlong piece has macho verve and a fine cast, yet the mechanisms of the plot get tiresome rather quickly. ** from **** | 0neg
|
Here's a movie with a good cast and nice looking location work but it just don't have it. Director Richard Brooks must have been a little bit tired at this stage of the game; How much better his THE PROFESSIONALS was! The horses and the rest of the action seemed to be in slow motion even during the non-slow motion scenes. This film needed to be sped-up, if anything. That horse lather sure looked awful phony to me and the obvious tire tracks in those desert tracking moments- just lazy. sloppy work. Too bad. The actors did OK, but I've certainly seen all of them do better. Ben Johnson's always a joy, though. I first saw this flick almost 30 years ago; was disappointed then and remained so upon second viewing 30 years later. | 0neg
|
This is a movie about animal cruelty. Under the guise of a marathon race, we see depictions of extreme animal abuse, including literally running a horse to death IN SLOW MOTION. The guy who did this then has his conscience spiritually cleansed by the flames from the burial/burning of the horse, which of course is still dead, having been tortured to death. This is one of the sickest, slimiest movies I've ever had the displeasure of viewing. As Gene Hackman and James Coburn near the finish line on their DYING animals, we're supposed to admire their spirit for finishing the race. I'd like to put the producers and director in a marathon race; I'll decide when they're finished, probably about 20 minutes after they stop breathing. | 0neg
|
Ohhh the brutality, ohhhhh the dying breed, ohhhh the sense of loss, ohhhh the prejudice! Jeez, when are all you whiney revisionists going to stop analyzing Westerns for crying out loud? S**t happens. If it offends your socially engineered sensibilities then go back to the comfort of your Meryl Steep collection.<br /><br />Boring, tedious, and very tiresome waste of celluloid-particularly in light of Coburn/Hackman/Bergen's presence. Nothing interesting or intriguing here, unless you are obsessed with 19th century desert dentisty. May have been a little better without the constant diversion of the out-of-place mexican guy with the bad tooth. A monument to the stupid ultra-left creeping sensitivity of the 60/70's. Virtually impossible to sit through the entire film. I think I'd rather have my eyes stapled open for the entire Lucky Luke/Trinity series. 4 Horses/10-all deader'n hell. | 0neg
|
The plot of this movie hangs on one important point: that this murderer was also a responsible, loving, caring father. Not that being a father and a murderer is impossible. But this man is shown murdering a teenage girl without provocation or reason and without emotion. This girl was someone's daughter. I don't think a father who cared so much about his own daughter could have been so cold-blooded to someone else's daughter. Or, alternately, could have been so cold blooded and yet worry about and care for his own daughter. And the idea that a convicted murderer would actually ask his victim's parents to take in and care for his daughter is beyond belief.<br /><br />That said, the characters were acted with conviction by the actors. I thought changing Scott Bakula's eye color did make him seem more cold and menacing than he usually is. You couldn't see into his eyes at all. | 0neg
|
The idea of In the Name of the People is good, a murderer doesn't want his only daughter to end up in an institution and asks the parents of the girl he killed to take care of his daughter. And you could expect of the actors, especially Scott Bakula to do some good acting, unfortunately they don't! In the Name of The People turns out to be the regular Friday night tearjerker. The flashbacks with the girl that was killed are pretty pathetic and at a certain stage you can just predict what the actors will say... If you want to watch a good film about this subject then watch Dean Man Walking! | 0neg
|
I'm sorry to report that I have seen this film several times. When it bombed at the box office, it was repeated nightly for about a month on HBO. And I watched it over and over because television in general is so bad--or was at that time. I no longer watch, so it might be wonderful now--like Samuel L Jackson says about swine, "It might taste like sweet potato pie, but I'll never know because I wouldn't eat the filthy mfer." Let's see. Dudley plays Arthur wandering in the desert, always a few steps behind Moses. It came out right after Life of Bryan, so you can guess where the inspiration for this came from. The few mildly funny bits go on way too long until you just close your eyes and grit your teeth. There's one scene where Arthur and Dom Deluise meet in the desert, both of them dragged out and dessicated, dying of thirst. Then they meet like old acquaintances who didn't really know each other very well, promise to do lunch. It could have been funny.<br /><br />But the scene that I remember most clearly is a meeting with pharaoh in which pharaoh is a black street kid done up in full King Tut regalia. He must have read the lines straight because at some point before the release, they overdubbed his scene with the Hollywood equivalent of black street lingo voiced by a Jimmy Walker wannabe (Kid Dyno-wannabe). Or it might have been Jimmy Walker--who knows? Who cares. They managed to turn an essentially boring scene into a very racist, very unfunny, very long piece of excrement, one of those legendary things that just won't flush, no matter how many times you try, so you leave it there for someone else to deal with.<br /><br />Well that's my review. If you rent this movie (DON'T BUY IT, WHATEVER YOU DO!) prepare yourself with a bottle of tequila and a six pack of Corona.<br /><br />Now that they've remade the Poseiden Adventure, this one is probably high on the list for remakes. Maybe they'll hire a comedy writer this time. | 0neg
|
In the questionable comedy vein of Mel Brooks, "Wholly Moses!" tries to take the Bible story of Moses and make fun of it, resulting in the unfunniest Biblical spoof ever filmed.<br /><br />There is no real plot here, just excuses to trot out stalwart comedy talent in underwritten roles. Dudley Moore and Laraine Newman are on a bus tour of the Holy Land, when they stumble across an ancient scroll in a cave. There they read the story of Herschel and Zerelda, also played by Moore and Newman. Herschel's life parallels Moses'. He was sent down the river to be found by the pharaoh's family at the same time Moses was. Herschel's birth father, the late James Coco, becomes Herschel's slave after Herschel is rescued by idol makers and works as a sculptor. Eventually Herschel comes to work for the pharaoh as an astronomer, is banished, and ends up tending Moses' flock of sheep. Herschel and Moses are brothers in law, marrying sisters, and Herschel thinks God has chosen him to free his people in Egypt. Of course, Moses was receiving the Divine Word, but Herschel misunderstood. I'll pause here to laugh hysterically...pause...anyway, the rest of the film is a series of badly written scenes involving Moore and actors who are making "special appearances." These scenes do not propel the plot forward, they bring what little story there is to a grinding halt.<br /><br />Jack Gilford plays a tailor. Dom DeLuise has maybe three lines when he meets Herschel in the desert. John Houseman is an archangel, just giving the same line readings he gave in "The Paper Chase." David L. Lander is a fake blind man "healed" by Herschel. Andrea Martin is one of Zerelda's sisters. I was not sure who Madeline Kahn was supposed to be, she gives a ride to Herschel, and has about a minute and a half of screen time. John Ritter plays a very unfunny devil. Richard Pryor has one scene as the pharaoh, but it was obviously shot at a different time than Moore's scene because the two do not appear onscreen together! In the end, Zerelda turns into a pillar of salt after looking back on New Sodom's destruction, ha ha. Herschel writes the Ten Commandments, and gives them to Moses, who is basking in all the glory. In the final scenes, the screenwriter decide to try and salvage this shallow film by having Herschel bait God into an argument. God comes off as an all powerful bully who was leading Herschel around for his own amusement, speaking through him only to give him the Ten Commandments. We even have Zerelda quip "God works in mysterious ways," thereby excusing everyone's very unChristian behavior during the film.<br /><br />This film is not funny. There is nary a laugh to be found anywhere. At least Monty Python made fun of many established religious mainstays in "Life of Brian" in addition to their questionable take on Jesus' life, but here the humor consists of poo poo jokes and characters constantly bumping their heads. This makes Mel Brooks look like Merchant/Ivory. Churchgoers will be offended, not by the film's attitude toward religion, but by the smugness the movie exhibits, impressed with their own hoitytoityness (I know, not a word) on a subject they obviously know nothing about. "Wholly Moses!" is wholly bad, and an embarassment to all involved. I suggest you read the Book instead.<br /><br />This is rated (PG) for some physical violence, profanity, sexual references, and adult situations. | 0neg
|
> you are warned this is a spoiler! > This movie is so bad that i doubt i can write enough lines. great direction the shots were well thought out. the actors were very good particularly Richard pryor tho i would have liked to have seen more of him. Madeline Kahn and john houseman were classic. Dudley More god bless him could have done better. John Ritter again i would have liked to see more of him. In my opinion this failure is due totally to writer failure. Maybe the producer could have pulled the plug once he saw what he was creating. Its just too bad that so much money went into this boiler,when with a little change here and there would in my opinion fixed it.They must have paid the writers standard rates. To produce one chuckle. | 0neg
|
I attempted watching this movie twice and even then fast forwarding the irritating parts but still could not make it to the end.<br /><br />I don't understand how this movie *genuinely* got any good reviews. I think these people giving such good reviews are just trying to hype the movie for marketing purposes. Their reviews seem very unrealistic and it looks like an inside job, which makes things more pitiful. Movies should get true positive comments on their own steam and not contrived ones!! <br /><br />The acting was reminiscent of a cheesy porno movie, and not in a funny way. I don't mind low budget movies with bad acting if they know how to work with it. <br /><br />I found the lead character to be irritating. His facial expressions and humor was unbearably childish. I thought this was intentional to make the womens conspiracy seem more enjoyable and founded, but they were even worse. <br /><br />The script was also very awkward (his bosses overdone business speech) and the unfunny sarcastic remarks. <br /><br />I did not find anything redeeming about this movie other than some of the attractive women.<br /><br />Never have I felt that a rating was this misleading. I was interested by its premise but scared off by everything else. Of course see it if you want, but I just didn't want anyone else to get their hopes up/waste their time. <br /><br />Maybe it is just me... Probably not. | 0neg
|
this video is 100% retarded. besides the brain cell killing acting and plot, it's way too long. don't waste your money at the video store. i actually was mad that i sat through this garbage and spent money on it. just absolutely awful. | 0neg
|
Ah yes the 1980s , a time of Reaganomics and Sly , Chuck and a host of other action stars hiding in a remote jungle blowing away commies . At the time I couldn`t believe how movies like RAMBO , MISSING IN ACTION and UNCOMMON VALOR ( And who can forget the ridiculous RED DAWN ? ) made money at the box office , they`re turgid action crap fests with a rather off putting right wing agenda and they have dated very badly . TROMA`S WAR is a tongue in cheek take on these type of movies but you`ve got to ask yourself did they need spoofing in the first place ? Of course not . TROMA`S WAR lacks any sort of sophistication - though it does make the point that there`s no real difference between right wing tyrants and left wing ones - and sometimes feels more like a grade z movie than a send up . Maybe it is ? | 0neg
|
This is truly an awful movie and a waste of 2 hours of your life. It is simultaneously bland and offensive, with nudity and lots and lots of violence. However, the nudity is not that exciting, and the violence is repetitive and boring. Also, the plot is flimsy at best, the characters are unrealistic and undeveloped, and the acting is some of the worst I have ever seen. <br /><br />I have heard that this movie is supposed to be funny, but it's not. I did not laugh once while watching it, nor did I even crack a smile. The makers of this film tried to combine a comedy movie with an action movie, and they failed on both counts. <br /><br />Some poorly made movies are funny because they are so bad, but this is not one of them. | 0neg
|
I'm not ruining anything when I inform you that you get to see a woman have sex with a goat in this movie. If that is your thing, then your movie has arrived.<br /><br />A woman and her husband go to see her estranged sister in the family mansion in the woods. Her sister is a creepy lady to say the least, and she seems to have interests that go beyond family love. On the side a group of unsavory characters show up and begin enacting all kinds of pagan rituals.<br /><br />The plotting is pretty weak and the characters are pretty dumb. The woman sticks around even after her husband starts turning into a jerk and hanging out with the pagans, even continues the have sex with him. On the exploitative side of things, there is much bared flesh and a couple of kinky couplings, but nothing that hasn't been better somewhere else. Oh, and the aforementioned goat-sex scene.<br /><br />Most viewers won't make it to the end. Exploitation fans will ride it out, but will be left wanting more.<br /><br />4/10 | 0neg
|
Extremely thin 'plot' of satanic rituals or some such mumbo-jumbo provides the hokey excuse to thread copious amounts of sex scenes together. Straight vanilla sex, masturbation, lesbianism, S&M, bestiality, incest, and a few other sexual proliferation's all get their time in the spotlight here. The problem is the storyline is so dull that the rampant sexuality gets pretty tedious after awhile. Who knew that a film with an intimate goat/ girl encounter could be so damn boring? Well now I do.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Venessa Hidalgo shows all; Helga Line provides T&A (both on display quite frequently); women viewers get the occasional penis.<br /><br />My Grade: D+<br /><br />Region 1 DVD Extras: Trailers for "Pick Up", "Legend of Eight Samurai", "Don't Answer the Phone", "Prime Evil", & "Sister Street Fighter" (also the same DVD holds a second feature movie "Evil Eye") | 0neg
|
I absolutely despise this movie. No wonder Jose Larraz "disowned" it at one point and refuses to discuss it. I admire Larraz's work, especially his more obscure slasher/sex maniac thrillers like SAVAGE LUST or SCREAM AND DIE. His work has a kind of inescapable artiness about it that he can't seem to switch off, owing in part to his secondary career as a painter & cartoonist. It's too bad he never made a Western, his vision would have been perfect.<br /><br />BLACK CANDLES is easily his most notorious film and probably his best known after the masterpiece VAMPYRES. And it's notoriety revolves around one scene where a Satanic coven enacts a bizarre rite involving extracting the reproductive fluid of a goat -- symbolizing The Beast -- as some kind of nauseating balm to be used in preparing the waif like sister of a murdered man for her role as the bride of Satan. The scene in question is staged in a way that looks rather convincing even without the display of any plumbing apparatus the goat may have been endowed with, relying upon the histrionics of the actress recruited to play the supplicant in the ritual and lots of guttural chanting on the film's recycled musical score heard in a half-dozen films attributed to Jacinto Molina. The perverse nature of the scene is more implied than shown in graphic detail, heightened somewhat by the knowledge that said supplicant is actually the teen-aged daughter of the Satanic priest. My but they had fun concocting this movie.<br /><br />The problem with it is that there isn't much to deconstruct or contemplate aside from the paper thin ROSEMARY'S BABY derived story of a woman being weaned into her role as Satan's bride by a sophisticated coven of Satanists living in the hedgrowed outlands of a very sinister Britain. Led by Eurohorror sensation Helga Line these Satanists are comprised of doctors, lawyers, land owning magnates and other upper crust dignitaries who actually owe their professional success to their worship of the devil. All you have to do is sell your soul and the world can be yours, only watch out whom you may sell out to pay back petty personal conflict or you may end up being felched with a sword.<br /><br />The film attempts to combine this heady Satanic trip with oodles or borderline graphic sex, and should correctly be regarded as a kind of apex or culmination of the sex and horror Spanish thriller traditions popularized in part by Mr. Molina & Ms. Line, and which had amazingly flourished under the disapproving eye of one Generalissimo Franco, the dictator who controlled Spain up until 1976. While he lived his decree was that Spanish cinema was to be free of graphic depictions of on-screen sex. Spanish directors often made two versions of their films, one with the sex concealed for their own screens and one with the fornication on display for export. As difficult as it was for the filmmakers to express themselves the result was a sort of interesting tension that usually results when artists flirt with the forbidden: Spanish horror from the 1970s has a very special flavor to it that is somewhat of an acquired taste. It's not for everyone.<br /><br />But in a bizarre turn of events, without Franco's influence on their culture Spanish horror sort of dried up in the late 1970s, when their Gothic castles and demonic orgies suddenly found themselves passé when compared to new sensations like JAWS and the STAR WARS phenomenon. And without Franco's constraints their were suddenly a flood of overtly graphic thrillers that came tumbling out of the pipes in the very late 70s/early 80s, of which BLACK CANDLES is perhaps the best known due to it's emphasis on sexual deviancy with a barnyard animal. Larraz' major horror films have always revolved around sexual taboos (the lesbianism of VAMPYRES, the incest of SCREAM AND DIE & DEVIATION) but here the effect of the depravity is to overshadow the rest of the production. Nobody cares about anything else but the traditionally censored trip to the Goat Barn, and watching a cut version without the scene in the barn is almost an exercise in pointlessness. The sex isn't graphic enough to rate as porn and the chills aren't chilling enough to rate as horror.<br /><br />So, BLACK CANDLES is essentially a behavior study -- Here is how high society British Satanists might behave in their secluded mansions out in the West Midlands or whatever. Between sex scenes the actors/actresses sit around and have lots of discussions. The best thing the film has going for it is an undeniably oppressive atmosphere of claustrophobia, with most of it's action taking place in the tightly confined interiors of Ms. Line's character's mansion. Nearly every avenue of fornication is hinted at so fans of soft-core sex romps with a hinting of supernatural horror will be amused, and of course the vicarious sex criminals amongst us will enjoy choking their chickens to the goat barn scene. But the ultimate conclusion of the film is silly, pretentious, intelligence insulting, and probably perfect for such an otherwise forgettable exercise in applied sleaze.<br /><br />2/10; Without the Goat Barn this movie just isn't the same, and with the scene it's probably a bit too much for most viewers. Larraz was correct to disown it. | 0neg
|
Black Candles is rather a muddled mess from the same director that brought us "Vampyres" and much later, "Rest in Pieces", among others..I'm only noting the ones I've seen. At any rate, we have a couple making love and then somewhere near by a pin is poised over a voodoo doll and then pierces it, and the man keels over. Not sure if it was good for either of them, at that point. Fast forward to where the man's sister has come to the house to investigate and hear the reading of the will, or something to that effect, and of course everybody else except her is in on something, which happens to be devil worship. It's really hard to say who is who at moments during the movie and it does get a bit confusing at times. To spice things up though, there's a simulated bestiality scene (I HOPE it's simulated) with a black goat, sure to be a crowd pleaser. Ugh. At times this echoes "Rosemary's Baby", minus the baby, because the hostess is always giving one woman herbal tea and the place reeks of whatever nasty Satanic herbs these are too, because that keeps getting remarked upon. However, the herbs aren't the only thing that reeks about this film. The end seems to be back to the beginning again, and many viewers might find themselves wondering where they've been during the middle part. It's not unwatchable, it's just not very good, and I guess it all depends on what you like to see in films, and there wasn't much here that did anything much for me. 3 out of 10. | 0neg
|
When Carol (Vanessa Hidalgo) starts looking into her brother's death, she begins to suspect something more sinister than "natural causes". The closer she gets to the truth, the more of a threat she becomes to her sister-in-law, Fiona (Helga Line), and the rest of the local Satanists. They'll do whatever is necessary to put a stop her nosy ways.<br /><br />If you're into sleazy, Satanic-themed movies, Black Candles has a lot to offer. The movie is filled with plenty of nudity and ritualistic soft-core sex. One scene in particular involving a young woman and a goat must be seen to be believed. Unfortunately, all the sleaze in the world can't save Black Candles. Most of the movie is a total bore. Other than the one scene I've already mentioned, the numerous sex scenes aren't shocking and certainly aren't sexy. The acting is spotty at best. Even genre favorite Helga Line gives a disappointing performance. The plot really doesn't matter. Its main function seems to be to hold the string of dull sex scenes together. I'm only familiar with one other movie directed by Jose Ramon Larraz. Compared with his Daughters of Darkness that masterfully mixes eroticism and horror, Black Candles comes off as amateurish. 3/10 is about the best I can do. | 0neg
|
What made me track this movie down was the viewing Vampyres, I thought I have to get the other movies this guy (Larroz) has made, I was sorry I tracked this down,it is a weak attempt at an occult/satanic type movie laden with sex and only sex(with ugly actors and actresses, this is an excuse for sleaze. The only redeeming factor was the setting and atmosphere, avoid this one, too much hype surrounds it, not worth the effort of finding it, this refers to the welcome to the grind house edition. I hope he has some other movies which lives up to Vampyres, Oh and the goat scene was very boring, I understand that this is what carries the hype. | 0neg
|
One of the cornerstones of low-budget cinema is taking a well-known, classic storyline and making a complete bastardization out of it. Phantom of the Mall is no exception to this rule. The screenwriter takes the enduring Phantom of the Opera storyline and moves it into a late '80s shopping mall. However, the "Phantom's" goal now is simply to get revenge upon those responsible for disfiguring his face and murdering his family. The special effects do provide a good chuckle, especially when body parts begin appearing in dishes from the yogurt stand. Pauly Shore has a small role which does not allow him to be as fully obnoxious as one would expect, mostly due to the fact that his fifteen minutes of MTV fame had not yet arrived. If you're looking for a few good laughs at the expense of the actors and special effects crew, check this flick out. Otherwise, keep on looking for something else. | 0neg
|
Phantom of the Mall is a film that fits best in the "easily forgotten" category. It's a pretty lousy variant on the famous story by Gaston Leroux, the Phantom of the Opera. Not a bad idea to itself, but the plot and production of this movie are way to weak to bring a decent homage to that story. On the bright side, Gaston Leroux doesn't has to turn over in his grave just yet. It could have been a lot worse. <br /><br />Phantom of the Mall has too many useless flashbacks in it and way too many boring sequences to make it memorable. Also, the scriptwriters wanted to give too much draught to the story than necessary. And even though there's a lot of mystery getting build up about the character of Eric ... the basic plot is ordinary and déjà-vu. ***SPOILERS*** It's about a young couple that brutally gets torn apart because the boy gets killed in a fire. That fire was set to his house because he and his parents refused to sell their home in order to make room for a huge mall to be build. The boy survived the fire and he has hidden himself in the mall to avenge himself. Meanwhile he guards his girl who now works in the mall and tries to forget her loss ****END SPOILERS*** This pretty simple - but rather effective - plot gets thickened by lots of pointless elements and annoying conspiracy theories. While it should just be an entertaining horror movie, it desperately tries to be an intelligent thriller...and that's not what the fans look for. There are a few innovative killings but they're not satisfying enough for people who want to see a relaxing horror movie. And besides, Phantom of the Mall could have used at least a bit of humor!! This entire production - the cast included - takes itself way too serious. <br /><br />I'll try to finish with a few positive aspects...Like for example, it stars Ken Foree !! Die-hard horror fans will certainly recognize him as Peter for Dawn of the Dead! That's like the horror milestone that yet has to find an equal. Even though his role in this movie is limited and even completely unnecessary...it was good to see him again. TV-movie fans will also recognize Morgan Fairchild as the mayor, she's a fine actress and an elegant lady. Pauly Shore is also in this but I can't stand him...so my opinion about him may be a bit biased. And finally, a bit of praise for the leading actress named Kari Whitman. She's an extremely beautiful girl and she does have a bit of talent...too bad she never made it to the top. Actually, this movie is her biggest achievement and that says enough about her career... | 0neg
|
Somewhere between the Food Court and Zip's, the mall in this film<br /><br />has an explosives store. This is the only place the title character<br /><br />can purchase the bomb he plants in the mall in the dull finale.<br /><br />A fictional town has a new mall, built on some land that was<br /><br />condemned. Cute Girl (I didn't catch her name) gets a job as a<br /><br />waitress there. She lost her boyfriend in a fire at the site where the<br /><br />mall stands. The villainous mall owner hires the arsonist<br /><br />responsible for the fire as a security guard after his first security<br /><br />guard ends up dead. Rob Estes, eons before "Silk Stalkings," is a<br /><br />photog/reporter trying to find a story. He hooks up with Cute Girl,<br /><br />and their mutual "funny" friend Pauly Shore, and try to find out if Eric<br /><br />is still alive. He is, living in the mall basement (?) and traveling<br /><br />through the air ducts and offing different people who upset his<br /><br />former girlfriend, including the arsonist. Eventually, he kidnaps her<br /><br />and the finale involves the bomb and everyone running from the<br /><br />scene before the big kablooey. Morgan Fairchild is along for the<br /><br />ride as the mayor...yes, she's the mayor.<br /><br />Of course, you probably did not need a plot sketch since the entire<br /><br />story is in the title. Someone named Eric is taking revenge against<br /><br />people as a phantom of a mall. This also means there is no<br /><br />suspense. We know Eric is behind this, but we still have to see<br /><br />Estes and Cute Girl go through the motions of a silly investigation.<br /><br />Watch as Fairchild, who we know has been in cahoots with the<br /><br />mall owner all along, pull a gun on our heroic duo in the middle of<br /><br />a crowded party, yet no one says a word as she leads them to her<br /><br />office, and her eventual death. The fictional town is huge, yet nary a<br /><br />policeman is ever called, everyone relies on mall security for order.<br /><br />Eric has been hiding since the mall was built, but I am not sure<br /><br />where. He seems to live in a basement area, but you would think<br /><br />some construction worker would have found him. He also has<br /><br />furnished his love pad quite well, and found a few outlets, since he<br /><br />has electricity. It might be nicer than your own apartment!<br /><br />Pauly Shore fans, both of you, take note. He tricks a security guard<br /><br />out of his booth by mooning the camera. Yes, stop scanning<br /><br />Celebrity Skin and Playgirl, this is where you get to see a grainy<br /><br />black and white shot of Pauly's south shore, although no weezil.<br /><br />This is just junk, and proof positive that I am down to renting just<br /><br />about anything at the video store to stay in the horror section. This<br /><br />film is not Eric's revenge, it is the film maker's revenge for me<br /><br />being dumb enough to watch it. Here is my revenge: I do not<br /><br />recommend it. That'll show 'em!<br /><br />This is rated (R) for physical violence, some gun violence, gore,<br /><br />some profanity, some female nudity, brief male nudity, and some<br /><br />sexual content. | 0neg
|
On the face of it, Ruiz has set out to make a psychological thriller. Although it's not as satisfying as a classic piece in that genre, there are compensations. The tensions generated between Huppert and Balibar as women calmly but calculatingly at war over a boy they both claim are compelling; however, in a true European art-house style, Ruiz doesn't give us release of this tension as the women alternately also try to behave compassionately towards each other. The only raised voice is that of Huppert's waking from a nightmare (an uncontested irrational event in the film).<br /><br />In fact, if we follow the title, the film is as little about its thriller skeleton as Jane Campion's In The Cut. Instead it is an intergender psychological study focusing on men. The boy, Camille (Nils Hugon), decides on a practical joke, playing his mother off against an emotionally vulnerable other woman. Both women seem to pander to him rather than scold and this compounds the problem. In the background is an intemperate psychologist (Charles Berling), swift to confront the women in his life - his sister Huppert, the nanny or his pa - and so acting as a symbolic adult counterbalance to the, calm and (we learn) manipulative Camille. It is particularly interesting that, like the father in Henry James' The Turn of The Screw, Denis Podalydes' law-enforcer Father is absent for the duration of the film. Ruiz fashions an Oedipal moment out of Huppert's reaction to his return at the film's close.<br /><br />Read either as a thriller or as a psychiatric essay, this film is ultimately rather disappointing. I'm officially rather fed up with Mme Huppert's screen method, which is too buried and so I'll be looking to see her on stage before I come back to her (European - enjoyed Heaven's Gate) films again. The support is good. Ruiz does the cast no favours though. Quite apart from some poor lighting and some wilfully odd shots, its as if his direction has left characterisation quite out of reach - I'm thinking particularly of Edith Scob's Shamanic neighbour to Isabelle, who acts knowing but communicates bafflement. The set pieces do not link up to a forward driving plot - the tension I have already referred to is not only weakly dissipated but wasted in its directional potential.<br /><br />Want to see a good contemporary French thriller? Go and see L'Appartement instead. 4/10 | 0neg
|
On his birthday a small boys tells his mother he is not her son, and that he wants to go home to his real mother.<br /><br />In some ways Comedy De L'Innocence feels like it comes from a different time of movie-making, perhaps the 60's or 70's. Certainly it reminded me of Losey's Secret Ceremony (1968), and Richard Loncraine's Full Circle (1977), both of which deal with loss, grief and relationships between parents and 'lost' children (curiously both films star Mia Farrow).<br /><br />All three films are populated with unsympathetic characters who behave in strange and unexplained ways. All three films have a chilly feel, both emotionally and literally. All three films focus on mother-child relationships, and ultimately all three films pose the question - 'what is real, what is imagined?' <br /><br />Beautiful but flawed, it offers no easy answers and leaves much hanging, unexplained and strange. | 0neg
|
I wish I could give this movie a zero, or even lower, because sadly that's what it deserves. I honestly never walk out of a movie, but this one was so dreadfully awful that I couldn't stand another minute of it. Please,please, please- for the sake of mankind- skip this movie. If you want a hot lesbian movie that you can really delve into, this isn't it.<br /><br />It has unattractive, unappealing leads, choppy structure, ridiculous dialog, and it is absolutely unconvincing in every imaginable way. On an absolutely basic level, it fails to entertain. Everything about "Mango Kiss" is so stagey, it is WORSE than any student film I have seen.<br /><br />As if that weren't enough, the entire movie relies on constant (and I mean CONSTANT) voice over narration. The script writer may as well have written a novel, because they insisted on TELLING everything, instead of SHOWING it. We are just supposed to assume that Lou and Sassafras are the best of friends and have a special connection, even though there is no character development to illustrate this. Also, this film continues to introduce to new characters after the first five minutes, and not in a natural way, but in a freeze-frame of the characters with their name written over the screen. There is no introduction, no development of any of the characters. We don't really get to know any of them.<br /><br />This is the most amateur movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />I am a gay woman, who watched this film with my roommate (another gay woman) and we both found this movie to be a depressing representation of queer cinema. I am beginning to think that lesbian and gay movies are a lot like Christian rock - it doesn't matter how atrocious it is, people will still flock to it, and champion it, no matter how poor the quality is. Please don't rent this!! Instead, let's encourage the production of QUALITY gay and lesbian movies by renting "But I'm a Cheerleader" or "Fire" or "Heavenly Creatures", instead of swallowing whatever mindless tripe they aim at the gay community (i.e. Queer as Folk). | 0neg
|
I borrowed this movie because not only because its gay theme but the thought of role playing really intrigued me. I was pleasantly surprised that it was shot in San Francisco since I live near SF. And of course it was nice to see shots of the Castro district (although the castro to me really caters more to gay male than female). But other than that I can't really recommend this movie. The characters aren't really developed for me to care and when they finally started to get to the "role playing" I was already bored out of my mind. And the role playing scenes that I did see were a bit embarrassing to watch. The acting leaves something to be desired. Needless to say I didn't finish the movie. I'd skip this one. | 0neg
|
OK, my girlfriend and I rented the DVD and about 30 minutes into the movie, we'd exchanged a lot of "ehhh, what IS this movie about and more importantly, do I care to find out what it ends with" glances and decided we either needed drugs to keep us interested in the "plot" or just end the pain right there and then and watch something else. We opted for the latter.<br /><br />I liked "But I'm a Cheerleader" a lot, but Mango Kiss is too silly and surreal for my taste, sorry! I definitely prefer "D.E.B.S", "Better Than Chocolate", "Fucking Åmål", "Goldfish Memory" and "Fire".<br /><br />-Sorcia | 0neg
|
In over 70 years of watching movies,This has to be one of the very worst comedies ever made. Mel Brooks, Mike Meyers & a few other have made some very bad comedies, this however is the absolute bottom of the barrel.<br /><br />It is unfunny from the very opening,to the tacked on scene during the credits.<br /><br />Diane Keaton who I normally like must have needed her paycheck badly. She desperately needs to re-learn her craft.<br /><br />Dax Shepard (I do not know who he is),needs a better director,to show him how to act.<br /><br />Liv Tyler is also not up to her role.<br /><br />Mike White needs to find another character,he has done this same type person a few times too many.<br /><br />Ken Howard who started out years back as a first rate actor, also not as good as he used to be.<br /><br />There is nothing decent I can say on this attempt at movie comedy.<br /><br />Ratings: * (out of 4) points 25(out of 100) IMDb 1 (out of 10) | 0neg
|
Whatever happened to Keaton is what I want to know.<br /><br />Actually I don't, I crawled away, heaving, thinking she must owe half the bookies in Vegas, or maybe not, maybe she was just brainwashed, blackmailed and bored to death. Rich enough to adopt a third-world country, she somehow had to star in yet another cookie-cut, cliché-ridden drool'athon, based on the same character-franchise she's been rehashing since 'Father of the Bride'('91). You'd think she's going head to head with Mr.Bean.<br /><br />(Spoilers) <br /><br />So hubby (Dax) get's fired by obnoxious son of boss, his mom (Keaton)leaves his dad after classic row, and crashes over with her own dog-show in tow, oh those little rascals. Hubby's got cold-feet for diaper-duty, wifey's clock a-ticking and hey, let's toss in a space-cadet as second house-guest for good measure, all in one day because that's so funny and original. Wife gets fed up and walks away, mom leaves dad for space-cadet and the couple makes up in time for closing credits, 86 very long minutes later.<br /><br />Now if you have to have a space-cadet, he can't be devious as well, he can't scheme some excuse for his stayover, and if mom leaves dad, she can't hop into a cab dressed as a pumpkin just because some scriptwriter agonized over how to cheer thing up. <br /><br />Plus that gag whereby they invite her in only to then discover she's got her canine entourage in the cab has got to be outlawed by now. And you only get one obnoxious 2-dimensional boss to denigrate. Another movie-killer would be the movie-script the space cadet is toiling away at, supposedly more lame than the actual one, again, dejas-ad-nausea.<br /><br />Liv Tyler doesn't seem happy here, her voice was weird at times, it had me wondering if they later had her redub some of it, and she's a smart one, she's handled great roles and we'll forgive her for Jersey Girl, it was disaster-prone, could happen to anyone. Dax Shepard was watchable and that's being generous considering the material.<br /><br />Personally, it's the director, the screenwriters and especially the producers that I would love to see tar'n'feathered before shipped to Guantanamo as playthings for the prisoners, and that's me keeping this 'lite'. | 0neg
|
Watching Smother was perhaps the longest not-quite-90-minutes of my life. There wasn't a laugh to be had; in fact, I don't remember ever cracking a smile. Diane Keaton was horridly unfunny as a middle-aged chain-smoking dog hoarder, the textbook overbearing mother character, a relentlessly irritating woman who clearly suffers from some kind of personality disorder. She is manipulative, conniving, melodramatic, childish, narcissistic, and worst of all, boring.<br /><br />I suppose I should briefly mention the other characters, but why bother? It was just a long string of movie clichés--the dippy, socially inept distant relative who's just trying to break into "The Industry", the gruff and long-suffering but somehow still lovable father, the mild- mannered wife who just can't take it anymore (but eventually moves beyond the discord and resignedly comes home), the herd of unhousebroken dogs who like to chew throw pillows while everyone is away, etc.<br /><br />God, what a snore. I've never been a Diane Keaton fan and Smother only reminded me why. Overacting is overacting, no matter how many pictures you did in your prime. Her attempts at physical comedy were especially humiliating. What was the director thinking?<br /><br />While I like Dax Shepard and can even sometimes tolerate Liv Tyler, their performances were so lackluster and dull that it was clear that neither actor gave a damn about this movie. That was okay, because neither did I. Keaton's endless self-absorbed prattling was intolerable and at times Shepard's dislike for her seemed genuine. By the end of the movie I wanted to slap her myself.<br /><br />Awful. | 0neg
|
After seeing the poster from the film Smother,I knew I was about to live one of those intolerable film experiences which make me want to take my eyes out.However,I felt a slight optimism because the movie had a solid cast which I thought it was going to rescue the movie.Unfortunately that did not happen.Smother is a horrible movie,but it is not execrable.That is the best I can say about it.<br /><br />The screenplay from Smother (written by the same guys from License to Wed,something which explains they have anything but talent for writing movies) is full of cheap and predictable humor.Seriously,I did not laugh even once watching this film.Besides,the solid cast I previously mentioned is absolutely wasted.After the big number of garbage she has been involved in (like the monumentally atrocious and execrable Because I Said So),some people may think the career from Diane Keaton is extinguishing.However,it is impossible for me to forget the excellent performances she has brought in previous decades,on films like Annie Hall or Baby Boom.On Smother,she makes her best effort with her performance,but her character is so horribly written she cannot do anything with it.Dax Shepard has left on me a good impression with his solid performances on the films Baby Mama and Idiocracy.However,he does what he can with his character.Mike White also makes a good effort,but he does not reach too far away.He is a very talented screenwriter (like he has shown on films like The Good Girl and School of Rock),so I would have liked to see he was one of the screenwriters from this movie,instead of only acting on it.Liv Tyler suffers from the same situation of all the previously mentioned actors : being wasted.<br /><br />The worst fail from Smother is being absolutely boring and unfunny.Its screenplay is nothing more than a collection of forced scenes and situations we have seen on sit-coms.Stay far away from this crappy comedy. | 0neg
|
Totally forgettable. Specially because of the weak acting. This is the first movie I've seen with Dax Shepard. To my surprise, he's been around since the late 90's. I thought he was a newcomer, since his acting was so bland. I could say the same about Liv Tyler. Although I've seen her do well in other movies, she gave Clare Cooper a strange personality. Liv is not the kind of actress that will give the character a fiery, emotional personality like Diane Keaton would be able to, but it was pretty strange to see her say her lines in whisper mode. It seemed that altogether there simply wasn't a very good chemistry going on between the actors, and I think Diane Keaton sensed that as well. She's a fantastic actress, but seemed just a bit over the top in this movie. It felt like she just wanted to get this movie over as soon as possible. I wouldn't blame her. | 0neg
|
If you hit your teens in the 70s, as I did, you probably remember the stories about Studio 54 whether or not you liked disco. An exclusive club, it was the perfect symbol of 70s cultural overindulgence and self-absorption; there's even an excellent VH1 documentary about the club that could tell you everything you wanted to know about its heyday, and the stories are easily interesting enough to spawn a very captivating film.<br /><br />Sadly, this isn't it. 54 follows the lives of a few of its employees, a bartender named Shane (Ryan Phillippe), a busboy named Greg (Breckin Meyer), his wife, a coat-check girl, Anita (Selma Hayek), and of course the master of ceremonies himself, Steve Rubell (Mike Meyers). While the goings-on at the club are well represented, this film concerns itself more with the personal lives of the workers, following Shane's story the closest.<br /><br />The movie works in spurts. Sometimes it captures perfectly the shallowness of the nightlife culture (such as when Shane is taken to a dinner party and doesn't know who 'Errol Flynt' is), and other times it waxes into hokey melodrama. Some of that is inherent in the premise following the underlings as they mingle in the world of the rich and fabulous but a lot of it is due to the kid-gloved treatment with which both the club and Rubell are given throughout the movie. While Rubell certainly electrified the scene in New York with his penchant for over-the-top spectacle and his exclusive hand-picking of the crowds each night, the rampant drugs and sexuality are only briefly touched on; and Rubell himself, while his excesses are mentioned, come off oddly positive for a guy who was in life a liar, a cheat, a drug abuser, and promiscuous as all hell. Not that I was looking for the man to be pilloried here, but his ego directly contributed to the fall of his club and the diminishing of the nightlife culture he helped to elevate. A final scene where he gazes down at the regulars paternally is so emotionally false as to be patently absurd.<br /><br />Meyers does his best to capture Rubell, but he's given so little to work with here it's surprising his performance is effective; but he's good, and he helps to anchor the film. Philippe, whom I find generally to be a good actor, is hamstrung here by the shallowness and stupidity of his character; he's limited to a deer-in-the-headlights smile or a sullen uncomprehending frown, and even he can't translate that into a strong performance. Hayek and Meyer are both okay, again, undercut by the writing, and Neve Campbell prominently featured on the DVD cover appears so briefly she really has an extended cameo.<br /><br />For some reason I still find myself interested, even fascinated, by the popular culture of the second half of the seventies. But even given that, this is not a film that particularly engaged me, despite a predisposition to like it. I'd say if that era, or that club, has any interest for you, track down the VH1 special rather than this middle-of-the-road melodrama. | 0neg
|
54 is a film about a club with that very title in the setting of the 70s era. It features the classic good-looking bartender. The sexy females. The high powered owner. The partying. When all entwined together chaos ensues, and the bartender (played by Phillipe) seems to be at the brunt of it all.<br /><br />I'm going to be as blunt and honest as possible, whilst avoiding any outright unfair or untrue comments (like, it's an 'ok' film). I really do find it a completely dire film complimented by it's dire cast. Every time I sit down to watch a film casting Salma Hayek, I am always awaiting to see her beauty, radiantly expressed simultaneously with a great performance, but, reality invariably reminds me quite abruptly how utterly talentless she is. I mean, really, what has she ever bequeathed the masses with, other than her immense table dance in 'From Dusk Till Dawn'...? The same goes for Ryan Phillippe, another poor actor who gives nothing to the screen but his good looks and insanely dull facade otherwise known as 'acting'. Mike Myers, isn't quite as bad as these 2, he does at least give the Film something worthy. Playing the seedy, extroverted co-founder of the 54 Club. The type that the majority watching would hate (i.e. job well done), he puts in a somewhat convincing performance that gave me rare enjoyment from the flick. But alas, it is not enough to rescue the film from it's baseless and flat nothingness. Most 'bad' bad films I find something to take from the film, but this has nothing to it, really. Neve Campbell isn't too bad, but she is just 'there'. The storyline is dull, it appears the writer was more bent on making a film of this style and embellishment and forgot to add anything else. Any meaning. Any class. Anything at all. Because like most ornaments, they are just hollow pointless objects, that are merely pretty to look at, much akin to the basis of this disastrous film.<br /><br />Genuinely an hour and a half of time I could have spent better doing something much more exciting, like talking to 90 year old relatives on the phone about the weather. | 0neg
|
"54" is a film based on the infamous "Studio 54" of the 1970s - the hangout for the social elite and party clubbers. In the film, Ryan Phillippe is the main character, based on an actual employee of Studio from 1977 - 1982.<br /><br />The film's problem is that it's all glitter and style and no substance. It tries to be a really grimy and probing satire like "Boogie Nights" but ultimately comes across as an inferior wannabe. Mike Myers is given the thankless task of playing cocaine-snorting club owner Steve Rubell. It's only a slightly comedic role and if this was Myers' best attempts at sliding into drama like Lemmon and other comedic actors did in their time, it's a total failure.<br /><br />"54" could have been insightful and interesting but instead it's just another dumb teen flick that isn't entertaining or even remotely engaging. View at your own peril. | 0neg
|
What a waste! This movie could have really been something decent, but the writing, in particular, is crap, and the main characters are rather shallow and uninteresting. Mike Meyers was good, and the historical recreation of late 70s decadence was well crafted, but overall, this movie was a big waste of time. Instead, the movie to watch, that deals with similar themes and the same basic time frame, is the great BOOGIE NIGHTS. | 0neg
|
Unfortunately this film, 54 was a pathetic attempt of the true story of 'Studio 54.' The only thing that was good about the picture was 'Mike Myers' who was a joy to watch. 'Neve Cambpell,' although her role was little was unfortunately bad. The bottom line is that this film lacked a good performance from the actors, except one and that the conversion of the true story was a desperate attempt for a good screenplay. | 0neg
|
Me and my girlfriend went to see this movie as a "Premiere Surprise" that is we bought at ticket to the preview to a movie before it opened here in Denmark. We sat through the 1st hour or so and then we left! The point of the movie seemed to be simply to portray the era (and club 54), but it did so at the expence of character development, of which there was none, and plot of which there was little.<br /><br />Seldom have I been so indifferent to the characters in a movie!<br /><br />The music was good though. So if you like to hear some good music and get a fix of that 70ies mood I guess it is OK. But don't expect to get a plot of believable characters.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
Unless you understand wretched excess this movie won't really mean much to you. An attempt was made to interject a bit of humanity into a cold and bleak period consumed by alcohol and drugs -- it doesn't work.<br /><br />When Salma Hayak does her big disco number her voice is so obviously dubbed it is pathetic -- the producers could at least have gotten someone that sounded remotely like her.<br /><br />The documentary that has been playing on television lately is far superior and gives a much truer view of that period of our history.<br /><br />No one, with the exception of Mikey Myers, could be accused of acting; however, he does an incredible job. | 0neg
|
I know no one cares, but I do. This film is historic for one reason. It is the unity of two heroes from two great seventies sci-fi films. Well, one is great, and one is quite bad. The great one is truly great, in fact it's the best. The bad one is truly bad, in fact it's the worst. Of course of the great I refer to "Star Wars" and it's star Mark Hamill, aka "Luke Skywalker", who is the hero of this film about a kid who gets his Vette swiped and then goes to Vegas (on a lead) and after a whole lot of adventures, eventually recovers it. (Since he's into fixing cars I guess you can call him "Lube Skywalker"). Along the way he meets a hooker with a heart of gold, and ends up facing off with a character played by Kim Milford, the hero from the seventies sci-fi cult film "Laserblast", which is, as I've hinted at earlier, the worst sci-fi film ever made. Milford plays the lead baddie whom Hamill must steal his car back from. I realize that no one cares about this meeting of two great sci-fi heroes, but I do. And I also must say that this is one of the best/worst movies of all time. Mark Hamill's acting needs the force, the plot needs extensive Jedi training, and the character of the hooker played by Annie Potts just might be the most annoying character of all time, ever, in any film I've ever seen. But it's a fun movie to watch on a weekend day, or a weekday night, late at night, very late. It's one of those films that meanders, looking for something but without quite finding it and yet, at the same time, it's entire purpose is, like free-form jazz, to simply exist as is. And it does. And what is, isn't that great, but you can't say it isn't entertaining, because for an hour and a half you might feel ripped off, but you won't feel cheated. So turn off your mind, relax, and enjoy this muddled gem without any expectations, and may the force be with you, always. | 0neg
|
The summer of 1979, when this flick was a staple on that new movie medium called HBO, was Gas Line Summer & Iranian Hostage Crisis Summer. A change of mood was about to end low-budget, loner-on-a-mission car films, although "Smokey & the Bandit" kept need-for-speed flicks going as live-action Roadrunner cartoons for a few more years. "Corvette Summer" is as quirky as any earlier movie like "Vanishing Point" or "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry," if lighter & sexier than most. Just-graduated, high-school automotive genius Kenneth (Hamill) hitchhikes to Vegas in pursuit of the car theft ring that ripped off his Shop Class masterpiece, a super-custom, right-hand-drive Vette. In the spiritual limbo of the I-15 desert (see "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas") he gets into a custom van (yes, this was the tail end of the van craze, too) tricked out as a mobile bordello & driven by sassy, aspiring hooker Vanessa (Potts), on her way to Sin City to make her, well, whatever it is ambitious hookers make. VANessa, get it? Shy, innocent Kenneth is in way over his head in Vegas, with only his all-American resolve & his new friend to help him, although the hard-edged young call girl is predictably less world-wise than she first seems. Why, in the "I am Woman" age, Vanessa invested her talents, money & future in the world's oldest but least dignified profession over, say, college or even hairdressing, can be explained by young men who'd like to think that all women at least consider the joys of that career path. Remember the target audience, right? Hamill is a good choice for the whitebread Kenneth (the car doesn't even belong to him personally, but to his school), who won't be deterred from his goal by violence, money or even love--until he finds out why the car was really stolen. Potts acts with style & energy but Vanessa is too incredible for any but the most credulous testosterone machine to buy into. The bad guys are made surprisingly human, especially by the always-fine Brion James. But there's not much action & this isn't the kind of movie that can be carried by dialog, plot twists or Heavy Themes. You could always reach up, turn the TV dial & plug in your "Pong" console. The similar but meaner Chris Mitchum vehicle "Stingray," which appeared at about the same time, featured lamer acting but more skin, speed & mayhem. The best features of each film might have produced a Vette movie worth remembering. Thus the Trans Am was left to rule the box-office muscle car showroom. Another forgotten car movie brought back from the dead by "Speed Channel's" fine weekend series, Lost Drive-in. | 0neg
|
Annie Potts is the only highlight in this truly dull film. Mark Hamill plays a teenager who is really really really upset that someone stole the Corvette he and his classmates turned into a hotrod (quite possibly the ugliest looking car to be featured in a movie), and heads off to Las Vegas with Annie to track down the evil genius who has stolen his pride and joy.<br /><br />I would have plucked out my eyes after watching this if it wasn't for the fun of watching Annie Potts in a very early role, and it's too bad for Hamill that he didn't take a few acting lessons from her. Danny Bonaduce also makes a goofy cameo. | 0neg
|
This is a pretty bad movie. The plot is sentimental mush. I suppose the production values are OK, decent photography, unobtrusive direction and all that. Mark Hamill was terrible. I've never cared much for him, and this movie validates that perception. It's no wonder that he never really had any sort of career aside from his "Star Wars" films. I'll just say "Buh-bye, Mark" as he sinks into well-deserved obscurity. On the other hand, a very young Annie Potts utterly stole the show. She showed charm, beauty, and acting chops all in one performance. I remember seeing her in "Texasville" recently and taking note of her beauty. It's interesting seeing her from ten years earlier. Anyway, unless you are interested in Miss Potts, run away from this film screaming for the hills. | 0neg
|
Mark Hamill should have felt mighty embarrassed with CORVETTE SUMMER! This time, he uses a new kind of "force" to regain the possession of his dream machine, a bright red 'Vette. It looks like another sour teen-age flick the first half-hour and does a U-turn in heading for the wrong direction. The writing and directing jobs are dreadfully done, with a few scenes you can't hardly take. You're expecting this to happen anyway, and you're also sniffing the smell of late-70s hodgepodge. Only a former newcomer like Annie Potts would easily steal the show and save this poor movie from the repo creeps! Her impractical but delightful personality holds on to your interest for good, and this is the finest chance to see her in a swimsuit. Hooray for Annie! Sorry, Mark! I guess the Force wasn't with you this time around. | 0neg
|
What if Somerset Maugham had written a novel about a coal miner who decided to search for transcendental enlightenment by trying to join a country club? If he had, he could have called it The Razor's Edge, since the Katha-Upanishad tells us, "The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over; thus the wise say the path to Salvation is hard." But Maugham decided to stick with the well-bred class, and so we have Darryl F. Zanuck's version of Larry Darrell, recently returned from WWI, carefully groomed, well connected in society and determined to find himself by becoming a coal miner. <br /><br />Or, as Maugham tells us, "This is the young man of whom I write. He is not famous. It may be that when at last his life comes to an end he will leave no more trace of his sojourn on this earth than a stone thrown into a river leaves on the surface of the water. Yet it may be that the way of life he has chosen for himself may have an ever growing influence over his fellow men, so that, long after his death, perhaps, it will be realized that lived in this age a very remarkable creature." <br /><br />The Razor's Edge has all of Zanuck's cultural taste that money could buy. It's so earnest, so sincere...so self-important. As Larry goes about his search for wisdom, working in mines, on merchant ships, climbing a Himalayan mountain to learn from an ancient wise man, we have his selfish girl friend, Isabel, played by Gene Tierney, his tragic childhood chum played by Anne Baxter, the girlfriend's snobbish and impeccably clad uncle played by Clifton Webb, and Willie Maugham himself, played by Herbert Marshall, taking notes. The movie is so insufferably smug about goodness that the only thing that perks it up a bit is Clifton Webb as Elliot Templeton. "If I live to be a hundred I shall never understand how any young man can come to Paris without evening clothes." Webb has some good lines, but we wind up appreciating Clifton Webb, not Elliot Templeton. <br /><br />Zanuck wanted a prestige hit for Twentieth Century when he bought the rights to Maugham's novel. He waited a year until Tyrone Power was released from military service. He made sure there were well-dressed extras by the dozens, a score that sounds as if it were meant for a cathedral and he even wrote some of the scenes himself. The effort is as self-conscious as a fat man wearing a rented tux. Despite Hollywood's view of things in The Razor's Edge, I can tell you that for most people hard work doesn't bring enlightenment, just weariness and low pay. <br /><br />After nearly two-and-a-half hours, we last see Larry carrying his duffle bag on board a tramp steamer in a gale. He's going to work his way back to America from Europe with a contented smile on his face. "My dear," Somerset Maugham says to Isabel at the same time in an elaborately decorated parlor, "Larry has found what we all want and what very few of us ever get. I don't think anyone can fail to be better, and nobler, kinder for knowing him. You see, my dear, goodness is after all the greatest force in the world...and he's got it!" Larry and the audience both need a healthy dose of Dramamine. <br /><br />Maugham, lest we forget, was a fine writer of plays, novels, essays and short stories. To see how the movies could do him justice, watch the way some of his short stories were brought to the screen in Encore, Trio and Quartet. And instead of wasting time with Larry Darrell, spend some time with Lawrence Durrell. The Alexandria Quartet is a good read. | 0neg
|
The author of numerous novels, plays, and short stories, W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965) was considered among the world's great authors during his lifetime, and although his reputation has faded over the years his work continues to command critical respect and a large reading public. Published in 1944, THE RAZOR'S EDGE is the tale of a World War I veteran whose search for spiritual enlightenment flies in the face of shallow western values. It was Maugham's last major novel--and it was immensely popular. Given that the novel's conflicts are internalized spiritual and philosophical issues, it was also an extremely odd choice for a film version--but Darryl F. Zannuck of 20th Century Fox fell in love with the book and snapped up the screen rights shortly after publication.<br /><br />According to film lore, THE RAZOR'S EDGE was to be directed by the legendary George Cukor from a screenplay by Maugham himself--and it does seem that Maugham wrote an adaptation. When the film went into production, however, Cukor was replaced by Edmund Goulding, a director less known for artistic touch than a workman-like manner, and the Maugham script was replaced with one by Lamar Trotti, the author of such memorable screenplays as THE OXBOW INCIDENT. Tyrone Power, recently returned from military service during World War II, was cast as the spiritually conflicted Larry Darrell; Gene Tierney, one of the great beauties of her era, was cast as socialite Isabell Bradley. The supporting cast was particularly notable, including Herbert Marshall, Anne Baxter, Clifton Webb, Lucille Watson, and Elsa Lanchester. Both budget and shooting schedule were lavish, and when the film debuted in 1946 it was greatly admired by public and critics alike.<br /><br />But time has a way of putting things into perspective. Seen today, THE RAZOR'S EDGE is indeed a beautifully produced film--but that aside the absolute best one can say for it is that it achieves a fairly consistent mediocrity. As in most cases, the major problem is the script. Although it is reasonably close to Maugham's novel in terms of plot, it is noticeably off the mark in terms of character and it completely fails to capture the fundamental issues that drive the story. We are told that Larry is in search of enlightenment; we are told that he receives it; we are told he acts on it--but in spite of the occasional and largely superficial comment we are never really told anything about the spiritual, artistic, philosophical, and intellectual processes behind any of it. We are most particularly never told anything significant about the nature of the enlightenment itself. It has the effect of cutting off the story at its knees.<br /><br />We are left with the shell of Maugham's plot, which centers on the relationship between Larry and Isabell, a woman Larry loves but leaves due to the growing ideological riff that opens up between them. Tyrone Power and Gene Tierney were more noted for physical beauty than talent, but both could turn in good performances when they received solid directorial and script support. Unfortunately, that does not happen here; they are extremely one-note and Power is greatly miscast to boot. Fortunately, the supporting cast is quite good, with Herbert Marshall, Clifton Webb, and Lucille Watson particularly so; the then-famous performance by Anne Baxter, however, has not worn as well as one would hope.<br /><br />With a running time of just under two and a half hours, the film also feels unnecessarily long. There is seemingly endless cocktail party-type banter, and indeed the entire India sequence (which reads as faintly hilarious) would have been better cut entirely--an odd situation, for this is the very sequence intended as the crux of the entire film. Regardless of the specific scene, it all just seems to go on and on to no actual point.<br /><br />As for the DVD itself, the film has not been remastered, but the print is extremely good, and while the bonus package isn't particularly memorable neither is noticeably poor. When all is said and done, I give THE RAZOR'S EDGE four stars for production values and everyone's willingness to take on the material--but frankly, this a film best left Power and Tierney fans, who will enjoy it for the sake of the stars, and those whose ideas about spiritual enlightenment are as vague as the film itself.<br /><br />GFT, Amazon Reviewer | 0neg
|
(aka: TRINITY IS STILL MY NAME) This sequel looks like it was done to capitalize on the outstanding European box-office success of THEY CALL ME TRINITY, only this time Joseph E. Levine and Avco-Embassy pictures wanted to capitalize on it in America as well. Too bad they didn't get very far since the Hill/Spencer pictures have had only had marginal success here in the U.S., and this largely boring, drawn-out film doesn't help it out any.<br /><br />Trinity and Bambino swear to their dying father (Harry Carey Jr.) that they will become successful outlaws and take care of each other. They later get involved with arms-traffickers who smuggle guns out of a monastery, and who mistakenly think they're a pair of federal agents. It all winds up falling flat in spite of a couple of funny scenes, especially the one where Trinity and Bambino are in a fancy French restaurant and don't know how to carry themselves. And the scenes with the card sharks was mildly humorous as well.<br /><br />The opening title music sung by Gene Roman sounds like a fair Bobby Goldsboro-like early 70s pop song while the music cues sprinkled throughout the movie are pretty good. Not sure if I'd want to buy the CD soundtrack of it but some others might.<br /><br />The film could have had a half hour whacked off of it and it wouldn't have dragged on for so long. It looks like a lot of scenery is being chewed up here. In fact, I lost interest in it about 2/3rds of the way through. The DVD is also terrible, with a constant hum in the soundtrack and a poor print that looks like it should have been sent to that great scrap heap in the sky.<br /><br />A big step down from the previous film.<br /><br />4 out of 10 | 0neg
|
I have seen this movie and the other one. Trinity is my name and i find that this one is worse then the first one. I have no idea why they even made another movie it was stupid and pointless sorry to say that i have all of them. I have sat through them number of times and it still drives me to turn it off 5 minutes into the movie. I like Terence Hill movies and i like Bud Spencer but this movie just drove me up the wall. If it had a different story line or at least more of a plot and more comedy it might have been funner and worth the 5 dollars i spent buying all the movies. But you make mistakes so i would say save your money and don't bye this movie or any of the ones that go with it trust me on this one. | 0neg
|
<br /><br />I didn't see They Call Me Trinity, but this sequel is really unfunny at all. It has many gags that are supposed to make people laugh. I guess the filmmaker just don't have the talent to do it right. Wonder why it was so popular in the 70s. | 0neg
|
Hollywood, the home of hype, glamor and the search for profits, is scarcely ruled by spiritual values, and so it comes as no surprise that its attempts at investigations of the spiritual life are thin and often silly (better to go farther afield--to the films of Bresson, Dreyer, Rossellini and Bergman, for probing depictions of the spirituality). "Strange Cargo" is no exception. This odd hybrid of adventure film, love story and religious parable trivializes the very insights it tries to communicate. That a figure of providence and salvation would work to match Verne (Clark Gable at his most cockily mannered and self-regarding) and Julie (Joan Crawford, snarling and spitting out every other word in an attempt to be the Queen of Tough Dames) seems ludicrous at best. Is this the Patron Saint of the Star System at work, matching warring egos before sending them off to further penal servitude on the M-G-M lot? BUT. . .there are good supporting performances here, and visually arresting moments: the shadowy prison barracks; the escaping boat by moonlight, or against a painterly cloudscape; Julie walking along the seafront as the wind whips up; Julie and Monsieur Pig (Peter Lorre) bargaining for Verne's freedom as the storm builds; an unusually ennobling gay prison romance between two convicts. . .Above all, there is Paul Lukas's dignified and detached performance as Hessler, a murderer who can appreciate Cambreau's virtues, yet turns his back on him. In the film's most arresting moment, Hessler, having left Cambreau, stands outside the cabin. We hear the wind through the jungle, see the shadows on his face, which conveys a moment of fear and self-doubt. Then he exits into the night. In this moment, Hessler achieves an ambiguity, depth and existential strength that none of the other characters manage to achieve. is the film's secret that its deepest sympathies are allied with Hessler? | 0neg
|
This film is pure 'Hollywood hokum'. It is based upon a novel called 'Not Too Narrow
Not Too Deep' by Richard Sale, which may or may not have been interesting; it would take research to find out! The story in the film takes for granted many incidents and much background which obviously existed in the novel but are nowhere to be seen in the film, so either the film was savagely cut or the screenplay was a mess from the start. There is not one millisecond in this film which is remotely realistic, either in terms of events or characters. It is pure Hollywood fantasy in every respect. Two well-known actors, Paul Lukas and Peter Lorre, are so under-used and wasted that there was no point in their being in the film at all. They must have been thrown into the mix in the manner in which one adds a sprinkling of chopped chives to an omelette, hoping that the flavour will be enhanced. The film is a ponderous attempt at producing a 'morality tale', and is so corny that it is laughable. The story concerns some hardened criminals imprisoned in French Guiana who want to escape from their French colonial prison through a jungle (very much a Hollywood set jungle, with a rubber snake). Naturally there has to be a woman in the story, so Joan Crawford hams it up as a down-on-her-luck tramp who for some reason becomes irresistible to Clark Gable, one of the escaped criminals. Crawford in escaping through the jungle wears high-heeled shoes and keeps her makeup fresh. Gable flirts and grimaces and makes mawkish expressions, crinkling his brow as was his wont, smirking and looking suggestively at everybody, which was his manner of acting. It is hard to treat such a character as a hardened criminal when he is always trying so hard to be Clark Gable that surely he hasn't any time left to be a thief. (Attention-seekers are by definition too busy to steal and unsuited to a task which requires that people NOT see them.) The whole escapade is so ridiculous that it can only be regarded as light entertainment. An attempt at religiosity and 'depth' is made by injecting into the story a mysterious 'angel of mercy' who voluntarily walks into the prison and pretends to be an inmate. He helps in the escape and accompanies all the criminals and ministers to their various deaths, helping them to find 'peace' in their last gasps. This character is played very well by Ian Hunter, who retains throughout a convincing air of secret knowledge, smiles enigmatically, makes cryptic prophetic remarks, and has a small spot trained on his face to give him a heavenly glow. The theme is meant to be redemption. You might call it the Donald Duck version of 'Hollywood Goes Moral and Gets Heavy'. For real depth, Hitchcock's 'I Confess' of 1953 shows how it should really be done. By contrast, this piece of trivial nonsense shows just how bare the cupboards of Meaning were in Tinsel Town, and that when they went rummaging for something that might mean something, all they could come up with was, you guessed it, more tinsel. | 0neg
|
Hollywood always had trouble coming to terms with a "religious picture." Strange Cargo proves to be no exception. Although utilizing the talents of a superb cast, and produced on a top budget, with suitably moody photography by Robert Planck, the movie fails dismally on the credibility score. Perhaps the reason is that the film seems so realistic that the sudden intrusion of fantasy elements upsets the viewer's involvement in the action and with the fate of the characters. I found it difficult to sit still through all the contrived metaphors, parallels and biblical references, and impossible to accept bathed-in-light Ian Hunter's smug know-it-all as a Christ figure. And the censors in Boston, Detroit and Providence at least agreed with me. The movie was banned. Few Boston/Detroit/Providence moviegoers, if any, complained or journeyed to other cities because it was obvious from the trailer that Gable and Crawford had somehow become involved in a "message picture." It flopped everywhere.<br /><br />Oddly enough, the movie has enjoyed something of a revival on TV. A home atmosphere appears to make the movie's allegory more receptive to viewers. However, despite its growing reputation as a strange or unusual film, the plot of this Strange Cargo flows along predictable, heavily moralistic lines that will have no-one guessing how the principal characters will eventually come to terms with destiny. | 0neg
|
I watched this with a growing sense of unease. Why would God, in the shape of Ian Hunter, help these particular people in their attempted escape from Devils Island ? And what was he doing there in the first place ? I mean, I know God works in mysterious ways, but helping thieves and murderers and prostitutes find redemption, forgiveness and changes-of-heart in such a godforsaken location.... In any event it is hardly a likeable movie. Whatever Gable had by way of charm is missing in this portrait of a thoroughly selfish man, Crawford is as endearing as ever she was i.e. to me, not at all, and the whole look of the film makes it seem as if it was made 10 years before.Compared to contemperaneous films like "Stagecoach" and "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town", this looks prehistoric. | 0neg
|
What a great word "re-imagining" is. Isn't that what they call Dawn of the Dead MMIV (2004)? A clever word indeed - it disguises the term that everyone has grown to hate, "remake" that is, and makes it almost sound as if the process of making one was creative and involved the imagination. Well, damn, was I misled. At least I was seduced more by the thought of countless gore and unbridled violence than by the idea of "re-imagining," though it played a role.<br /><br />Still, why make a remake? Directors do it for only a few reasons really: to update a movie for a modern audience, or because they personally love the original and want to make a tribute to it. An homage, if you will. Nonetheless, it all generally (I do admit exceptions) boils down to one thing: stealing someone's idea and reshaping it (or "re-imagining" it) so that those who would never see it or understand it would pay money to see it. It's like Coles'/Cliffs' notes; dump everything in a blender, purify all that is more puzzling and curious and throw in a few artificial flavors. In other words, a great marketing scheme.<br /><br />So what's wrong with this one? Well, I'll start with what I liked. I liked the opening scenes. Thanks to CGI and a bigger budget we could actually get a grasp of the chaos of the zombie holocaust Romero tried to communicate in the original through minimalist means. We see the city in ruins, thousands of zombies: chaos and death. Two words that look beautiful on screen. Then it all falls apart.<br /><br />This set-up leads nowhere. The movie does what almost every remake does. It adds more of everything except character, atmosphere, and story. It's noisier, (in some sense) bloodier, and more full of main characters who appear only to die in nonsensical subplots. The setting, the mall which played a crucial role in the original film's story and theme, is purely coincidental. The idea communicated in Romero's film, the pure ecstatic joy of having "a mall all to yourself as a fortress," is gone here. Further, this "re-imagining" has no moxie, no spirit, no balls. It assumes (probably quite rightly) that the audience has no attention span and doesn't bother to get us interested in the characters or the story. The film is rushed and misses the quieter interactions of the four characters of the original. You actually grew to care about those people in Romero's version because there was a certain realism to their existence despite the insanity outside the mall. Here, you don't care when or who goes: what matters is how they go.<br /><br />What else is their to say? The film is not scary. It has one or two "jump" scenes and it tries to make up for the rest with gore and loud special effects. As a story it's really too choppy to be followed and the conflicts between the characters are too underdeveloped to save it. The humor is also reduced to a few one-liners (and one really good character: Andy). After that, what remains? An ending that is plainly ridiculous and far inferior to the subdued, inevitable ambiguity of the original film. But, despite it being a pretty bad film (though not quite as bad as some other remakes), it should be remembered for one thing: it kicked The Passion of Christ from it's number one spot in the box office. Well done zombies. | 0neg
|
Funny how many of the people who say this is far superior to Romero's version tend to be very young (judging by their other posts). What we have here is a slick, action packed, gory and "Whoopee" filled 2 hour MTV video. Frantic editing, pop-video camera work, "cool" music blah blah blah<br /><br />Actually it ain't bad compared to other recent remakes (Chainsaw Massacre was a total disaster)... pretty good acting all round, totally predictable in the "who will die next" stakes and a total cash in on the Dawn Of The Dead name that will generate plenty of revenue alone by fans of the original who will go and see it out of curiosity...<br /><br />Don't remakes of classics get on your nerves? Can they REALLY not come up with something original? Why remake Dawn Of The Dead? The things that made the original special (the middle segment kids think is so boring is supposed to be slow to show how when you get everything you ever wanted you still ain't happy) are totally missing. This is an action flick, plain and simple. The faster the better. If you are into action flicks (and as this, the 2004 version is well done) fair enough, but for anyone who likes a little substance to their films... get ready to sigh (again)...<br /><br />Watch the cinemas over the next few years as we get The Godfather series remade by whoever the most fashionable Pop director is at the moment, and Star Wars remade, with all the kids saying how the new version is miles better cos the old version is slow and boring and holds a camera shot for more than 5 seconds...<br /><br />Not bad, but in 10 years they will still be discussing the Romero version, not this pap | 0neg
|
When I went and saw this movie, I had great expectations. But I had so wrong. This movie was exactly as every other horror movies. It's a virus, zombies etc. Exactly as Resident Evil and many, many other movies. But the difference with this, and other movies, is that the story is very week. It's bad actors and boring music. The photo is OK but the rest is total crap. Don't see this "horror" movie, go and see the Ring 2 or any other movie who's much more of a story. I hope they will stop making horror movies who has a virus and the virus spread and make people to zombies. We have seen enough of that. The only good thing in the movie is when they are standing at a roof and shoot famous, infected celebrities. | 0neg
|
What a horrible movie. I cannot believe i wasted 90 mins of my life watching this re-make. Please tell me why Ving Rhames and Mehki Pfifer starred in this film? Mehki Pfifer is great in E.R and Ving Rhames probably didn't know what he was doing. I feel terrible for them. The music background i must say did not fit AT ALLLLL with the story and it's amazing how you can find these directors who have absolutely no lives in creating a well and balanced film. I hope that in the future no director as horrible as this one was, could ever distroy such a great classic film. This film should not have been made in the first place. An advice to everyone who has seen it, please tell me that i'm right because i couldn't possibly be the only viewer who did not enjoy it.<br /><br />BOOOOOO!!!!!!!! -10 out of 10. | 0neg
|
The plot is about a female nurse, named Anna, is caught in the middle of a world-wide chaos as flesh-eating zombies begin rising up and taking over the world and attacking the living. She escapes into the streets and is rescued by a black police officer. So far, so good! I usually enjoy horror movies, but this piece of film doesn't deserve to be called horror. It's not even thrilling, just ridiculous.Even "the Flintstones" or "Kukla, Fran and Ollie" will give you more excitement. It's like watching a bunch of bloodthirsty drunkards not being able to get into a shopping mall to by more liquor. The heroes who has locked themselves in, inside the shopping-mall to avoid being eaten by the hoodlums outside, are not better either. Even though they doesn't seem to be drunk, they give the impression of being mentally disabled. Save your money instead of spending it on this! | 0neg
|
Just don't bother. I thought I would see a movie with great supspense and action.<br /><br />But it grows boring and terribly predictable after the interesting start. In the middle of the film you have a little social drama and all tension is lost because it slows down the speed. Towards the end the it gets better but not really great. I think the director took this movie just too serious. In such a kind of a movie even if u don't care about the plot at least you want some nice action. I nearly dozed off in the middle/main part of it. Rating 3/10.<br /><br />derboiler. | 0neg
|
What the hell is this? Its one of the dumbest movies I've seen. I don't understand why people on this site love it so much. Its senseless &nudity for no reason. Its worst then Resident Evil. I strongly don't recomend it unless you want to watch chessy, bad acting crap. Watch real horor movies such as Stephen King's It, The Shining, Jurassic Park(kinda horor), JAWS, etc. Leave this crap for a rental when there is nothing else to rent. It is bad as Crudy vs Gayson. Attack of the Killer Tomatoes is better then this crap.<br /><br />Oh wow flesh eating zombies. How many damn zobie movies do we need. SKip this one.<br /><br />* outta **** | 0neg
|
<br /><br />Worst. Movie. Ever.<br /><br />What was the purpose of filming this remake (aside from turning it into a 90-minute informercial for the movie's soundtrack)? Zombies that *run*??? I guess the director never watched the original "Dead" films, which show stiff-limbed (from rigor mortis) creatures shuffling/shambling toward their living prey.<br /><br />And how, exactly, did the survivors know which boat in the marina belonged to the recently departed Steve?<br /><br />1/10 | 0neg
|
I was so eager to see this one of my favorite TV shows.I saw Universal trademark followed with a newly acquainted title and theme song which still impress me.Computer animation on some scenery like a solid title name"The Jetsons" or a dimension view of a spaceship approaching an amusement park and more made this version splendid and fantastic.Shortly after that till the end...I couldn't believe my eyes!!!!How lucky I was that I could forget all I had seen.Just songs by Tiffany and its theme song in new arrangement were in my head.Anyway,I wish to see this space-aged family (also The Flintstones and Yogi Bear) in all graphic computer design as Toy story or Bug's life.The best style for Hanna-Barbera's in my opinion. | 0neg
|
I'm all for the idea of a grand epic of the American Revolutionary War. This ain't it. (And for that matter, neither was the Emmerich/Devlin/Gibson THE PATRIOT. But I digress.)<br /><br />I saw this film at a publicity screening at the old MGM Studios (now Sony) just before it came out. The audience had high expectations for this expensive period piece, written by veteran Robert Dillon, directed by the esteemed Hugh Hudson (of CHARIOTS OF FIRE fame), and starring Al Pacino.<br /><br />But it didn't take long for people to start squirming in their seats, whispering derisive comments about Pacino's horribly misconceived accent -- he was supposed to be an American frontiersman of Scottish ancestry(!) -- and that of Nastassja Kinski, who was supposed to be recently emigrated from England(!!). Then the story started and it all went downhill fast.<br /><br />Motivations were muddled, dialogue was atrocious, events had no historical or political context. What there was of a plot lurched forward on absurd coincidence; by the second or third time that alleged lovers Pacino and Kinski stumbled into each other it had become a bad joke. Donald Sutherland gave an unhinged performance as a British officer/pederast. His accent was all over the map too. I guess there weren't any English actors available.<br /><br />Lots of people left. Those who stayed tried to stifle giggles, then openly guffawed. I stuck it out -- I figured that at least the battle scenes might be good. I was wrong. Inexplicably, Hudson chose to film them with hand-held cameras, not even Steadicam, the jerkiness giving a misplaced newsreel 'authenticity' which ruined the sense of scale.<br /><br />There was a semi-famous TV reviewer in the audience a few rows ahead of me: (the late) Gary Franklin of Channel 7 Eyewitness News. I could tell he was peeved by the behavior of the rest of us. And sure enough, on his TV segment the next day he gave the film a '10' on his notorious 'Franklin Scale of 1 to 10', while remarking churlishly about the louts who'd disrupted the screening the night before, who clearly didn't know art when they saw it. What a buffoon.<br /><br />After this disaster, Pacino didn't star in another film for almost 4 years. Hugh Hudson's career never recovered. You can't say I didn't warn you. | 0neg
|
I can't figure Al Pacino out. I watch him in the Godfather, Scarface, Carlito's Way, and I think I am watching one of the greatest actors of the last thirty years. Then I see him in Two for the Money, Any Given Sunday and Revolution, and I wonder what the guy is thinking.<br /><br />I stumbled on Revolution a few nights ago, and thought I would invest the next two hours on this. Here is a news flash: Want to get prisoners to talk? Force them to watch this over and over...they'll confess to anything.<br /><br />I won't rehash the plot since there is no coherent plot, but it does take place during the American Revolution and Pacino plays an uneducated peasant who does not want to get involved, but ultimately does. While he has no money, no education and dresses like a caveman, a very hot Natasha Kinski falls in love with him for no apparent reason, since they have only two minutes of dialogue together.<br /><br />Quite frankly, if "Al Smith" starred in this movie, instead of "Al Pacino", it would have ruined their career. The script was horrible, but Pacino's demotivated performance and obvious fake accent made it even worse. Donald Sutherland's role was laughable. I really can't describe it. Natasha Kinski is a main character, but has like 5 lines in the movie. In fact, nobody speaks much in this movie.<br /><br />One of the most laughable premise in the movie is how Al Pacino and Kinski have this uncanny knack to continually run into each other on the battlefield. Its like the entire Northeast is a Starbucks. "Hey, funny to see you here again, on ANOTHER battlefield 100 miles away...see you in a few months".<br /><br />I am required to give this one star by IMDb, since there is nothing here for a negative score. | 0neg
|
Brilliant actor as he is, Al Pacino completely derails Revolution his Method acting approach is totally ill-suited to the role of an illiterate trapper caught up in the American War of Independence. Much of the blame should be attributed to director Hugh Hudson (yes, the man who made Chariots Of Fire just a couple of years earlier talk about a come-down!!). One of the many jobs of a director is to marshal the actors, coaxing believable performances from them, but in this case Hudson has allowed Pacino to run amok without asking for restraint of any kind. It's not just Al's career-low performance that hinders the film though: there are numerous other flaws with Revolution, more of which will be said later.<br /><br />Illiterate trapper Tom Dobb (Al Pacino) lives in the north-eastern region of America with his son Ned (Sid Owen/Dexter Fletcher). He leads a simple life living off the land, raising his son, surviving against the elements. The country is lorded over by the English colonialists, but during an eight year period (1775-83) a revolution takes place which ends with the British being defeated and the independent American nation being born. Dobb gets caught up in the events when his boat and his son are conscripted by the Continental Army swept away by events they can barely understand, the Dobbs finds themselves fighting for their lives and freedom in one bloody engagement after another. Tom also falls in love with Daisy McConnahay (Natassja Kinski), a beautiful and fiery woman of British aristocratic ancestry. Their forbidden love is played out against the larger historical context of the fighting.<br /><br />Where to start with the film's flaws? Most key actors are miscast Pacino has been criticised enough already, but Kinski fares little better as the renegade aristocrat while Donald Sutherland is hopelessly lost as a ruthless English soldier with a wobbly Yorkshire accent. Robert Dillon's script is muddled in its attempts to bring massive historical events down to a personal level. At no point does anyone seem to have decided whether this is meant to be an intimate character study with the American Revolution as a backdrop, or an epic war film with a handful of sharply drawn characters used to carry the story along. As a result, the narrative falls into no man's land, flitting from "grand spectacle" to "small story" indiscriminately and meaninglessly. John Corigliano's score is quite ghastly, and is poured over the proceedings with neither thought nor subtlety. Hugh Hudson's direction is clumsy throughout, both in his mismanagement of Pacino and the other key actors, and in the decision to use irritatingly shaky camera work during the action sequences. The idea of the hand-held camera is to create immediacy that feeling of "being there" in the confusion of battle and musket fire. Like so many other things in the film, it doesn't work. The one department where the film regains a modicum of respectability is the period detail, with costumes, sets and weaponry that look consistently accurate. But if it's period detail you're interested in a trip to the museum would be a better way to spend your time, because as a rousing cinematic experience Revolution doesn't even begin to make the grade. Nothing more than a £18,000,000 mega-bomb that the ailing British film industry could ill afford in the mid-1980s. | 0neg
|
This movie was promising: my favorite actor in a historical drama during the Independence war. It had memories from "Dances With Wolves" for the big prairies, Indians, military fights & from "Barry Lyndon" for the British & candles lights atmospheres...<br /><br />Unfortunately, the script is awful: the continuity of the story is lacking (cuts with "5 months later"; "3 years later") & the romance is so ridiculous that it's hard to believe in it: America is a big country but the characters kept bumping at each other; Above all, wait for the ending & you understand how to kill a story (imagine the same in "Titanic").<br /><br />Sometimes, a bad script is saved by a brilliant filmmaker. Unfortunately bis, Hudson is a poor one. He has already committed "Greystoke" and i find again the same flaws: no dynamic in scenes, in editing, in scoring: it is long, dull, flat....<br /><br />I knew that this movie was a disaster for Pacino's career: now i understand. Finally, this last movie for 2006 is in the vein of this year for me: A painful one... | 0neg
|
Revolution is a terrible movie, I don't care if you're a history teacher, news writer, Al Pacino fan, there's no way this movie can possibly earn a legitimate '10'.<br /><br />The key point to the plot is Tom Dobb (Al) trying to get money from a note he got for radical patriots taking his boat. Everything revolves around that note. Tom's son joins the army to make up for the note, making Tom join the army as well, they go on an adventure trying to get out of the army, years later the war is over and they can finally turn in the note for their boat. The End.<br /><br />It had a few battle scenes, and they were pretty mediocre at best. Transistions between scenes used "five months later" and magically put the characters in some famous historical battle. The love story is a joke, and the movie as a whole is just hard to follow. So save your "Notes" and watch the Patriot instead. | 0neg
|
Damp telling of the American Revolution.<br /><br />When farmer 'Tom Dobb' (Al Pacino) and his son arrive in New York Harbor, they are immediately conscripted by street urchin Annie Lennox... Annie Lennox?... to contribute to the war effort.<br /><br />After getting chopped down by bits of chain-link fired from British cannons, Tom and his son are promptly chastised by Continental Army sympathizer 'Daisy' (Nastassja Kinski) for 'not standing their ground'. Following this Kodak moment, a series of digressive chapters take place including Tom's participation in a 'foxhunt' in which he must carry a model of "poor old Georgie Washington" stuffed in effigy while running from a lace handkerchief-wielding English captain (Manning Redwood), and having a barbecue with a group of Iroquois Indians as they plan on the best way to sneak back into the fighting so Al and his ingrate kid can kick the crap out of British officer Donald Sutherland's butt.<br /><br />Director Hugh Hudson presents a unique style of film-making and the atmosphere is as thick as the proverbial London fog, but the scriptwriter's painting of the redcoats as evil monsters once again reveals Hollywood's patented hatred of the British.<br /><br />Steven Berkoff appears as an enlisted American soldier. | 0neg
|
How they got Al Pacino to play in this movie is beyond me. This movie is absolutely terrible. I discovered, after reading some of the other reviews, that a couple of people actually enjoyed this film, which deeply puzzles me, because I do not see how anyone in their right mind could possibly enjoy a movie as awful as Revolution. It's not just that it's a bad movie, with a lame plot and overall strangeness that is extremely unpleasant, but it seems as if the filmmakers were either mentally retarded (which is a very possible explanation as to why this movie sucks like it does, though it probably still sucks even compared to other films made by retards) or deliberately made every illogical decision to make this movie suck as much as possible. For example, we see Donald Sutherland running around with a huge, fat ugly mole on his face. He does not normally have a mole. The mole does not add to his character. It is extremely ugly and distracting. It's not like Robert De Niro's mole; it's much worse. Why the hell has he got that mole? It's as if the filmmakers just said, "Let's see, how could we make this movie even worse than it already is? I know, let's give Mr. Sutherland a giant, ugly-ass mole right on his face."<br /><br />Another example of the filmmakers' stupidity is the character Ned. We see, for the first three-quarters of the movie, young Ned. At one point, "six months later" appears on the screen. We see Ned again, and it is, of course, the same actor playing the boy. Five minutes later, "three weeks later" appears on the screen, and all of a sudden we've got a different actor playing as the now older Ned. What, do they think we're idiots? Good God! Again, it's like the filmmakers are saying, "How can we possibly make it any worse? I don't think we can...Oh wait! I just had a terrible idea!" I know a kid doesn't grow much in half a year, which is fine, but he at least grows more than he does in three weeks. Just don't get another actor to play Ned, or at least get him to play the five minutes when he's three weeks younger. Furthermore, the kid who plays the "older" Ned does not look any older than "young" Ned. As a matter of fact, he just looks completely different, much skinnier, and no taller or older than the original actor, which is very confusing, as I, like any rational human being, thought at first that it was a new and different character.<br /><br />What, did the first kid die while they were filming the movie? Because he was in it for the first hour and a half, and then all of a sudden, three weeks later, the guy from Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is playing Ned for the last five minutes of the movie. And even if the original actor did die, the filmmakers should have at least gotten an actor who looks like him to play the remainder of his role, and re-shoot the measly five minutes of "six months later" scenes. Better yet, just scrap the movie completely, never finish it and never release, never even tell anybody about it, because by that point they should have realized that their movie sucks and in finishing it they would only waste more money and time and succeed in making one of the worst movies of all time.<br /><br />I'm not saying that this movie is so bad you shouldn't watch it; it's so bad that you SHOULD watch it, just to see how badly it sucks. It's terrible, terrible. | 0neg
|
Historically accurate? Hmm... Perhaps... if you squint, and light falls upon the subject just-so. But core accuracy is no compensation for a dismal, patchy and inconsistent plot, reams of cardboard dialogue and an unsatisfying conclusion. The principal characters are merely characterizations; embarrassing stereotypes that range from the 'enigmatic and noble' American Indians through to the 'stuffy but sadistic' British officers. A wretched and unworthy rendition of a fascinating period in American history. I want my money back. | 0neg
|
I watched this movie also, and altho it is very well done, I found it a heartbreaker and would not recommend this to women who have small children.. The terror on this mother's face when she sees her child about to be run over by a train is truly heartbreaking. And the sad thing is--internally she dies. Eventually she goes back to the Applacian mountains. All the money in the world which she makes from making dolls does not conceal the grief she has. I remember her desperate face as she pulls money out of her clothes to try to have her child healed. I'm surprised this movie takes place in Detroit, because when I watched it I thought for sure the people had come to Cincinnati, Ohio. This also was a route for the poor from the mountains. | 0neg
|
*McCabe and Mrs. Miller* takes place in the turn-of-the-century Pacific Northwest. Into a soggy, muddy mining camp John McCabe (a hirsute Warren Beatty) comes barging, full of cigar smoke and big ideas about building a proper saloon/whorehouse for the town, replete with a trio of the sorriest whores in movie history. He also comes with an unearned reputation as a gunslinger: too shameful about this to blatantly advertise it, but not exactly afraid to use it in order to assert alpha-male credentials amongst the locals. And thus he wrangles the boys into building his saloon at the rate of 15 cents an hour.<br /><br />It looks to be a rather sorry operation until Mrs. Miller (Julie Christie) shows up on a startling contraption that's half-railroad car, half-automobile (where did Altman find that thing?). Mrs. Miller immediately takes on McCabe as a business partner, with the aim of classing up the new joint with proper whores and an insistence that all visitors take a bath before entering. Noting that McCabe doesn't know how to add, she also insists on handling the accounts. It's not clear what McCabe's function will be.<br /><br />The plot thickens when a pair of oily representatives from the mining company show up in town and offer McCabe to buy him out for five grand. McCabe tells them to buzz off -- he's holding out for fifteen thousand. The company finds negotiation distasteful, so they hire a trio of assassins to simply kill McCabe . . . though how they think they can get away with murdering a man in broad daylight in the center of town is as unclear as McCabe's function in the whorehouse partnership. (Excusing this whopping plot hole on the grounds that the locals would be too cowed to talk doesn't cut the mustard when one considers that any reward-money offered by the local Marshal would be pretty tempting.) <br /><br />*McCabe and Mrs. Miller*, purportedly "classic Seventies cinema", should be a lot better than it is. The movie tells a pretty good story; the main characters have the potential to be interesting. There are some striking scenes, especially one involving what looks to be a 14-year-old stone-cold killer. But it's really, really hard to enjoy a movie when you can hardly hear what anyone is saying and when you can hardly see what anyone is doing. Once again, this director hijacks his own movie with sheer barnyard laziness and sloppiness. According to the trivia-sheet here on IMDb, the movie's editor griped to Altman that the sound was muddy; Altman disagreed; and when everyone said the sound was muddy after the movie's release, Altman blamed the editor. (Nice.) Along with the bad sound, the movie has an atrocious look. Only Robert Altman can hire a world-class DP like Vilmos Zsigmond and make a movie that looks as if they sprayed the camera lenses with dirty dishwater. Reviewers here who praise the "dark brown glow" of this picture have GOT to be kidding me. The interiors are shot through what appears to be a dark scum. The exterior photography is even worse: it's as if Altman placed 500 fog machines behind the copious trees. During the climactic stretch, when Beatty is dodging the assassins while the local church is on fire, Altman insists on pretty much wholly obscuring the view with an animated snow-fall that reminds one of a Rankin-Bass Christmas special.<br /><br />Look -- I can't watch a movie under these conditions. Get back to me when you learn how to place boom mikes, when you remove all that annoying "Altman-esque" overlapping dialog, and when you wipe the lenses with some Windex, or something. 3 stars out of 10. | 0neg
|
I've read all the rave reviews here and am impressed with the imagination of those who loved this film. I can't say that I found much to recommend it. The Leonard Cohen sound track is not only excessively heavy-handed but dreary beyond measure. The film looks authentic enough, but something's got to happen for it to work, and nothing much does: a cursory plot (not a real problem for me), not much character development, nothing thematically. It just slogs along. Flawed as it is, Cimino's "Heaven's Gate" has some moments of genuine wonder and is a film I'd sooner watch again. For a brilliant reconception of the West, HBO's "Deadwood" is much superior to "McCabe." | 0neg
|
Robert Altman's downbeat, new-fangled western from Edmund Naughton's book "McCabe" was overlooked at the time of its release but in the past years has garnered a sterling critical following. Aside from a completely convincing boom-town scenario, the characters here don't merit much interest, and the picture looks (intentionally) brackish and unappealing. Bearded Warren Beatty plays a turn-of-the-century entrepreneur who settles in struggling community on the outskirts of nowhere and helps organize the first brothel; once the profits start coming in, Beatty is naturally menaced by city toughs who want part of the action. Altman creates a solemn, wintry atmosphere for the movie which gives the audience a certain sense of time and place, but the action in this sorry little town is limited--most of the story being made up of vignettes--and Altman's pacing is deliberately slow. There's hardly a statement being made (just the opposite, in fact) and the languid actors stare at each other without much on their minds. It's a self-defeating picture, and yet, in an Altman-quirky way, it wears defeat proudly. ** from **** | 0neg
|
Oh God,what an idiotic movie!Incredibly cheap with fake special effects(the creature is played by one guy in lame costume)and stupid plot.All dialogues are unbelievably bad and these actors(HA!HA!HA!)...they're simply ludicrous.For example I have never seen so annoying characters like in this junk(these dumb kids or pregnant woman with his husband and many more).All in all,this is a great entertainment if you're drunk.Avoid it like the plague.Am I drunk?I don't think so... | 0neg
|
Blue monkey is actually mentioned in the film but not in any way that makes any possible sense. At one point,some kids are wandering thru the deeper levels, exploring. <br /><br />They begin to discuss what they'll find down there and one of them (a girl) says she bets they'll find a blue monkey.<br /><br />Yes, thats it. Totally inconsequential to the story, the only sad connection to the title, and no idea why she would suppose she'd find a blue monkey in a hospital's basement.<br /><br />I'm embarrassed for having remembered it but somebody had to remember I suppose! | 0neg
|
Never even knew this movie existed until I found an old VHS copy of it, hidden deep in my dusty horror closet. The title on the box said "Insect" and the illustrations on the back made clear that it is just another insignificant and poorly produced 80's horror movie. They can surely be fun, of course, as long as don't expect an intelligent scenario and as long as you're not irritated by seeing a giant amount of cheesy make-up effects. Just about every important aspect that makes a horror movie worthy viewing is substandard here in "Blue Monkey"! The plot is ridiculous and highly unoriginal, the acting performances are painful to observe and there's a total lack of suspense. Following the always-popular trend of "big-bug" movies, "Blue Monkey" handles about a new and unknown insect species that wipes out the doctors and patients of a remote hospital. The makers couldn't be more evasive about the actual origin of this gigantically over-sized critter! All we know is that it's not from outer space and it initially crawled out of a tropical plant. Other than this, there's absolutely no explanation for where this new type of insect all of a sudden comes from! Like I said, don't get your hopes up for an intelligent screenplay. The first half of the film is entertaining enough, with some nice gore and the introduction of a couple deranged characters (an 80-year-old blind and alcoholic lady!) but the second half (when the entire hospital is put to quarantine) is dreadfully boring. It is also near the end that "Blue Monkey" begins to exaggeratedly rip-off older (and better) films. Approaching the climax, they apparently ran out of budget as well, since the lighting becomes very poor and the guy in the monster suit isn't very well camouflaged anymore. "Blue Monkey" is worth a peek in case you're really bored or if you really want to see every 80's horror movie ever made. Fans of B-cinema may recognize John Vernon ("Killer Klowns from Outer Space", "Curtains") in the small and meaningless role of Roger, who's in charge of the clinic. | 0neg
|
When I first saw the cover of this movie (a giant bug chasing a few nurses) And the name "Blue Monkey", I knew I wasn't in for any big Hollywood movie. I was pleasantly surprised to see Steve Railsback in this cheese-ball flick, who always does a good job in whatever role he tackles.... The FX are pretty corny, there isn't too much of a plot, and I'm still not sure why this movie is called Blue Monkey, because there is nothing in this movie to do with monkey. But come on people, what did you expect?? It's not really as bad as it seems.... If you enjoy the old 50's style black and white bug attack movies, this one is basically an updated version, without the updates special FX | 0neg
|
All this dismaying waste of film stock needs is Count Floyd popping up every sixty seconds. Somehow they got Steve Railsback, Susan Anspach, John Vernon, and Joe Flaherty together on a set and couldn't get within five miles, about eight kilometers, of an actual movie. BOY does this thing suck. There isn't one original line, thought, shot, or effect from brainless opening sequence to brainless close. The magical, ethereal Susan Anspach of Five Easy Pieces - boring. Steve Railsback - boring. John Vernon - boring. The big bug - boring. If this is a scary movie, Buttercream Gang is a thuglife documentary. <br /><br />Seriously - every bad movie contains its own explanation of its badness. Usually it's in the opening credits - "Written, Directed, and Produced by" one guy. Or at the very center of the action is some bimbo so talentless that you know there's one and only one reason this turkey got made. Here, you don't find out till the very last of the credits, where the cooperation of about a dozen subfunctions of the Canadian Government is gratefully acknowledged. <br /><br />Right now I'm watching MST's take on Beast of Yucca Flats to get the taste out of my mouth. Ghod, what an improvement. | 0neg
|
Now, it would be some sort of cliché if i began with the bit about the title, so i'll wait on that. First, this movie made me wonder why kids do stupid things like wander around in labs and break bottles. Then i realized it, this is a movie with a message, that message is beat kids and things like this won't happen. Things like what you ask? Things like a giant insectish monster growing up and causing a bit of mayhem before dying in the typical "kill the monster indirectly" fashion. Now, as promised... Blue Monkey... has nothing Blue in it nor any Simian of any kind. Now it snot like i was cheated or anything. The picture on the cover had a giant bug/crab/idiot/thing on the front chasing some screaming nurses. That kinda happened but i wanted apes! having just enjoyed MOST EXTREME PRIMATE a few nights before(half drunk on Cask and Creame's brandy mind you) i was in the mood for more monkey hijacks 80's style. Not so much. If you like snow boarding apes or blue things this movie is not for you. If you like bugs and good reasons to hit kids, rent this. | 0neg
|
Blue Monkey (1987) or 'Invasion of the BodySuckers' as it's known here in the UK was a pretty boring horror movie about an old man who gets bitten in a greenhouse by some mysterious toxic plant!!!! The man gets rushed to hospital, where this worm like creature comes out of his mouth, of course this transforms into this insect monster and proceeds to go on the rampage!! Despite Steve Railsback and John Vernon being in the movie, i found it to be boring, with a flat predictable storyline, un-interesting characters, cheap special effects and lack of action!!!! Horror fans don't really need to track this rare movie down, you wont be missing much trust me!!! I give this movie 2/10. | 0neg
|
An older man touches a flower in his wife's greenhouse that seems to be wilting. He gets pricked by it, or bitten by something on it. He quickly becomes ill, and at the hospital spits out a large writhing white larva of some kind. A later attempt to resuscitate him with paddles results in a splatter of blood.<br /><br />A cop is at the hospital because his partner got badly hurt in a shoot-out. Somehow the cop gets paired up with one of the female doctors, as well as an entomologist who is brought in. There are several young kids wandering around the hospital, who I suppose we're supposed to find adorable, but who are extremely annoying little brats. They happen to wander into the room where the specimen is being kept, and happen to dump a growth hormone on it. Horror movie logic would say they deserve to die for this, but they're never even in any danger.<br /><br />The critter grows and starts breeding. People run away from it, and sometimes towards it for some reason. The hospital gets surrounded by military who are prepared to destroy everything if need be.<br /><br />There are no really compelling characters in the movie, and most of the time it seems like people are searching around for the monster. It was fairly boring. Clearly it owes something to the Alien movies, with the monster being born inside a human and having several stages of its growth. There's also a character named Bishop, and the lead actress has Sigourney Weaver's hair. | 0neg
|
Oh God,what an idiotic movie!Incredibly cheap with fake special effects(the creature is played by one guy in lame costume)and stupid plot.All dialogues are unbelievably bad and these actors(HA!HA!HA!)...they're simply ludicrous.For example I have never seen so annoying characters like in this junk(these dumb kids or pregnant woman with his husband and many more).All in all,this is a great entertainment if you're drunk.Avoid it like the plague.Am I drunk?I don't think so... | 0neg
|
This movie is a mess, but at least it's not pretentious. The box art for the video markets it as a "fun throwback" to 1950s giant bug movies. In reality, it's a transparent bargain basement ripoff of "Aliens".<br /><br />The producers clearly wanted to make an "ALIEN" picture, but they mustn't have had much money. In fact, it doesn't look like they had ANY money, really. I hope everyone got paid who worked on this thing.<br /><br />The basic plot is retained--group of people isolated with murderous insectoid creature--and an earthbound location is inserted for budgetary reasons, I presume. Instead of setting the film in space, where no one can hear you scream, they set the film in a hospital, where everyone can see your budget laid bare. The amusing thing about "Blue Monkey" (and there is only one thing amusing about it) is, the filmmakers didn't abandon the "ALIEN" aesthetics. Even though we're in a hospital, we still have an improbably cavernous annex where science fiction experiments are being conducted, in this case the venerable "growth hormone" plot device. The annex also doubles as a boiler room (or something), so we can have an explanation for the monster seeking out the warmth. The boiler room is so large that it is laced with multi-leveled steel catwalks, perfect for allowing slime to drip down between the slats.<br /><br />The idea is that a man working in a greenhouse is attacked by a drooping flower from a rare imported plant that grows in an exotic location. He touches it and says "Ow", so we know he's been hurt. The cut on his finger causes him to lapse into unconsciousness in a matter of minutes, and at the hospital he gives birth to a white worm through his mouth (I guess in an "ALIEN" picture this would be called the "mouthburster"?). The worm is isolated, but some naughty little kids (leukemia patients) sneak up on it and "accidentally" give it some experimental growth hormone. You know everyone's in trouble when some fornicating hospital staff workers are attacked by a camera on a crane, and pretty soon a maintenance man finds some obligatory cocoons, right before he's grabbed by a pair of semi-convincing insectoid arms. The rest of the movie is dominated by the semi-offscreen monster, semi-obscured by the semi-darkness.<br /><br />Which brings us back to "ALIEN". How, you ask, can a movie set in a hospital incorporate all those flashing strobe lights that are always in the "ALIEN" movies? No problem...a power outage (or something) causes the electrical system to go awry, which apparently causes strobe lights to blossom in every room of the hospital and flicker constantly throughout the movie. This doubles as a convenient cloak for the less-than-special effects (although the bugs are pretty neat looking, they don't move too well, and the baby bug looks charmingly like a Cootie toy).<br /><br />OK, so what "ALIEN" bases haven't we covered...OH, water dripping down the walls! Check...we'll divide the massive hospital into two parts, then send some of the characters through the damp, drippy basement to get to the other side. Problem solved, we now have the opportunity for numerous "foreboding tunnel" shots. And don't forget the fog...well, you never really need an excuse for this in horror movies, do you? OK, maybe inside of a hospital you do, so we'll create smoke by having lots of things spark & burn.<br /><br />I haven't said anything about the negligible acting, not that the actors are given any kind of script to follow. I take it "Blue Monkey" was supposed to be lighthearted and fun, and if so then it is a nice try, but the pieces don't come together and the movie ends up being a real drag. See a film called "Return of the Aliens: The Deadly Spawn" if you want to see a film of this type that gets it right, with even less money and even more marginal acting talent. This one falls flat on its ALIEN. | 0neg
|
This was the worst MTV Movie Awards EVER!!! I barely laughed, none of the presenters were funny, the hosts really sucked, and the parodies weren't so great either. Why can't we go back to the good olden days when the show was a riot? | 0neg
|
I usually check out the MTV movie awards to watch a witty, entertaining show that delivers a unique award show (Chewbacca winning a life-time achievement award as example). So this year was no different. While I'm not a fan of Justin Timberlake, Seann William Scott has always been funny-albiet stupid-to me. I've laughed at Stiffler in both American Pie movies, and even enjoyed him in Dude Where's My Car?. But the MTV movie awards were simply horrible. Nothing was coherrent, humorous, or entertaining. Justin Timberlake should stick to singing and dancing; he sure as hell can't act.<br /><br />I'm curious as to who the writers were for this show. Last year's performance by Jack Black and Sarah Michelle Gellar was extremly funny (The Lord of the Rings parody alone was worth watching the entire show), but this year was completly different. Did anyone understand Timberlake's comments regarding Luke Wilson and Kate Hudson ("They're staring in a movie together, but have never met! Here they are...") Where was the joke? Kate and Luke just went into their lame dialogue, never making a reference to the "joke" by Timberlake. And Seann was completly wasted as a talent, not even causing me to smile, yet alone laugh. And what was the point of Harrison Ford's one-liners? Did they make ANY sense to anyone? Perhaps the MTV writers figured the young viewers would only know the aging Ford as Han Solo, Indiania Jones, or the President from Air Force One. I'm baffled. And would someone tell me the deal with Adrian Brody? How old is this guy and how old does he THINK he is? The guy looks 30, trying to act 19 again....give it up, show some class (like in your best actor academy award speech) and act your age!<br /><br />I give this show 1 star out of 4, simply because of the speech by Gollam for Best Visual Performance. This was very creative, extremely well done, and caused the only genuine laugh of the entire evening. | 0neg
|
The Japanese have always had incredible ambitions in their fantasy movies. They have always been ready to destroy cities by huge plastic monsters coming from outer space and elsewhere. The problem is they have never had the money to succeed in making convincing special effects. This film, released in France under the title Les envahisseurs de l'espace, is no exception. Its ambition is to show three creatures from the giant octopus to the giant lobster trying to have the upper hand on the humans. It's extremely awkward and laughable, but well quite enjoyable too. After all, we do like these creatures and these films after all, don't we? | 0neg
|
How can such good actors like Jean Rochefort and Carole Bouquet could have been involved in such a... a... well, such a thing ? I can't get it. It was awful, very baldy played (but some of the few leading roles), the jokes are dumb and absolutely not funny... I won't talk more about this movie, except for one little piece of advice : Do not go see it, it will be a waste of time and money. | 0neg
|
I completely agree with the other comment someone should do a What's up tiger Lily with this film.<br /><br />It has to be one of the worst french films I've seen in a long time (actually along with Brotherwood of the Wolves, 2 horrendous films in a much too short period of time).<br /><br />It's really sad because the cast is really interesting and the original idea kind of fun. Antoine DeCaunes in particular and Jean Rochefort being among my darlings, I was bitterly disappointed to see them compromised in such a poor film.<br /><br />Lou Doyon is quite bad, as usual which goes to prove that a pretty face and famous parents can get you into the movies but they don't necessarily give you talent.<br /><br />avoid this film, if you want to laugh watch an Alain Chabat instead or some nice period piece full of fun like LA FILLE DE D'ARTAGNAN. | 0neg
|
After watching the first 20mn of Blanche(sorry I couldn't take more of it), I have now confirmed she does not. <br /><br />Basically, this "movie" is an insult to the real french actors participating in this farcical piece of junk. It starts from a concept successfully used in French comedies ("Deux heures moins le quart avant Jesus Christ", "La Folie des Grandeurs",...): a historical movie with anachronic tone / dialogues. This can give brilliant results if supported by brilliant actors and a "finesse" of direction avoiding the dreaded "heavy comedy" stigma.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the horsey-faced Lou Doillon ruins everything and Blanche, instead of a comedy, just turns into an horror movie. Horror to cinephiles who want to be puzzled and shocked watching fine actors such as Decaune, Zem or Rochefort struggling in the middle of this gaudy burlesque kitchy-prissy farce. | 0neg
|
I went to see this a few days ago, and it's hard to forget that film...for the wrong reasons. This film is supposed to be funny, it's not, not a single laugh in the theatre( perhaps for josé garcia and gérard Depardieu ), and it's boring, boring, boring. It was even hard sometimes to understand what they were saying. They just talk to fast and don't open their enough for us to understand. I was with a friend and more than 4 or 5 times i caught myself saying after a line that was supposed to be funny " what, what did he say", and i'm french. I hate to say that, given the fact that i think good films are made here, but i apologise in advance for all foreigners who will go see the film ( if ever shown outside of France ).<br /><br />We're deeply sorry for that cr@p. 2/10 | 0neg
|
This is one of the worst movies I saw! I dunno what are the reasons for shoting suck a crap. Don't waste your time watching this. Good actors, but extremely bad screenplay and dialogues. Hope there'll be no Blanche 2 :-) Avoid this movie by all means! | 0neg
|
Avoid this one, unless you want to watch an expensive but badly made movie. Example? The sound is good but the dialogue is not clear - a cardinal sin in a French film.<br /><br />This film attempts to combine western, drug intrigue and ancien regime costume epic. What? Well, consider this. The cowboy music is hilarious during sword fights. Or how about the woman in her underwear, holding a knife and jumping up and down on the bed?<br /><br />Someone should do a 'What's Up Tiger Lily' on this bomb. Rewrite the script and then either dub or subtitle it. Heck, it's almost that now. (BTW, Gerard Depardieu and Carole Bouquet, both known to American audiences, have roles.) | 0neg
|
Sorry, but every time I see a film wherein a woman sucker-punches a man and the man does nothing but cower, the film looses all credibility. So the new (female) Starbuck immediately tainted the plot before it even got off the ground (no pun intended). Dirk Benedict was so much more plausible as the sensitive hero-type than the new-age Kattee Sackhoff-- whose overacting will probably be henceforth lauded as "a compelling, exciting, must-see, ground-breaking performance," by the politically correct new-speak of today's review copy editors; but in essence, it is just a tired, old image of a woman with a chip on her shoulder as big as a townhouse: the biggest cliché on screens today. I may give this series one more shot, but human caricatures alone will not keep me tuned in. As James Hilton once bemoaned, "A story, please; just give me a story." | 0neg
|
I fail to see the appeal of this series (which is supposed to be sci-fi). It's really just "let's see what soap operatically happens this week" and oh, the Cylons are involved through flashbacks.<br /><br />The Cylon "babe" that keeps nailing the other guy is pretty lame, it's pretty obvious that T&A was added to the show. Every time she pops up I'm bewildered as to WTF is supposed to be going on. And don't even try to bullsh*t me about "story arcs".<br /><br />It's a soap opera with some CGI thrown-in. This is not science fiction aside from the original premise.<br /><br />This series is not everything it's worked-up to be. If you like trendy, edgy, dodgy, jumpy, vague editor-on-crack camera work, this show might be for you. Since nerds seem to be raving about this show, it's a clear indication that vocal nerds' opinions have been changed from Picard's TNG. | 0neg
|
I have yesterday seen the second part. And I must say, it was actually better then the first one. At the begin, I realized, It is actually a sequel, not a remake but not a good one. I do not like the old movies and series of Galactica, because the cylons saw like toasters (just as it was mentioned in this new movie) and were completely harmless for the old galactica. This movie turns the sides - the Humans were harmless but the whole movie was for me completely chaotic and stupid. Many scenes were unnecessary, for instance the story of the "computer expert" - completely a crap. If I were a scriptwriter I would leave him die in his house, killed by the cylon woman. And the evacuation from the planet? Oh, please if it would be bombed by 50 Megatons (why exactly 50 MT??) nukes, they would be dead killed by the radiation. And how is it actually possible that the big fleet of cylon was completely hidden before the attack? Aha, it was possibly this computer virus, created by the cylon - the script was probably written by ten-years-old school boy. The good side of the movie is, that the humans are at last defeated!! Really defeated, the population is near the extinction (children are dieing - two times explicit in the movie: 1. a baby!!! maybe one month old and a girl in age of max ten - what a violence...). And the bad-asses won and I think it is the first time in such sci-fi galaxy fight movie. I also appreciate the design of the cylons (not only of the humanoid cylon:-) a good job with these ships - I like the design of the ships by both of them - human an cylons. The human ships are a good never version of the old ones. And galactica - really pretty with these docks, I liked that. But this is all, only the design is not enough. The acting was really bad, the whole plot was expectable (only two things not - the human-cylon on the ragnardocks and the human-cylon at the end).The dialogs were trivial (and in the Slovak dabbing just stupid, but that is not fault of the movie). The whole movie looked like a pilot film for a series, but who would shoot such series? What it would be about? One star for the design the second one for the near extinction of humanity. | 0neg
|
Rating: 4 out of 10<br /><br />As this mini-series approached, and we were well aware of it for the last six months as Sci-Fi Channel continued to pepper their shows with BG ads, I confess that I felt a growing unease as I learned more.<br /><br />As with any work of cinematic art which has stood up to some test of time, different people go to it to see different things. In this regard, when people think of Battlestar Galactica, they remember different things. For some it is the chromium warriors with the oscillating red light in their visor. For others, it is the fondness that they held for special effects that were quite evolutionary for their time. Many forget the state of special effects during the late 70s, especially those on television. For some the memories resolve around the story arc. Others still remember the relationships how how the relationships themselves helped overcome the challenges that they faced.<br /><br />Frankly, I come from the latter group. The core of Battlestar Galactica was the people that pulled together to save one another from an evil empire. Yes, evil. The Cylons had nothing to gain but the extermination of the human race yet they did it. While base stars were swirling around, men and women came together to face an enemy with virtually unlimited resources, and somehow they managed to survive until the next show. They didn't survive because they had better technology, or more fire power. They survived because they cared for and trusted each other to get through to the next show.<br /><br />The show had its flaws, and at times was sappy, but they were people you could care about.<br /><br />The writers of this current rendition seemed to never understand this. In some ways he took the least significant part of the original show, the character's names and a take on the story arc and crafted what they called nothing less than a reinvention of television science fiction. Since that was their goal, they can be judged on how well they accomplished it: failure. It was far from a reinvention. In fact it was in many ways one of the most derivitive of science fiction endeavors in a long time. It borrows liberally from ST:TNG, ST:DS9, Babylon 5, and even Battlefield Earth. I find that unfortunate.<br /><br />Ronald D. Moore has been a contributor to popular science fiction for more than a decade, and has made contribution to some of the most popular television Science Fiction that you could hope to see. One of the difficulties that he appears to have had was that there could be no conflict in the bridge crew of the Enterprise D & E. That was the inviolable rule of Roddenberry's ST:TNG. Like many who have lived under that rules of others who then take every opportunity to break the rules when they are no longer under that authority, Ron Moore seems to have forgotten some of the lessons he learned under the acknowledged science fiction master: Gene Roddenberry. Here, instead of writing the best story possible, he has created a dysfuntional cast as I have ever seen with the intent of creating as much cast conflict as he could. Besides being dysfunctional, some of it was not the least bit believable. Anyone who has ever been in the military knows that someone unprovokedly striking a superior officer would not get just a couple of days "in hack," they could have gotten execution, and they never would have gotten out the next day. It wouldn't have happened, period, especially in time of war.<br /><br />The thing that I remembered most of Ron Moore's earlier work was that he was the one who penned the death of Capt. James Kirk. He killed Capt. Kirk, and, alas for me, he has killed Battlestar Galactica. | 0neg
|
The most horrible retelling of a great series. It should not have been named Battlestar Galactica, because it's only the same in name alone. Too many changes to just have changes. You have characters turned from male to female, black to asian to cylon all in a way to "attract female audiences," when there was already strong female characters that could have just been made stronger. Gone are the egyptian feeling. Gone are the quest for earth. The lack of cylons to go to terminator rejects takes away from the film, especially when one is made a fembot. Granted the original show had a lot of cheese to it, but it had a large following. They tried to hold onto this following but give the fans nothing to work with and basically spit in their face as they make it "their own story." Changes are good, when they make something better, not to just make them. | 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.