text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
This star-studded British/Spanish co-production looks great, what you can see of it. I have three versions, two VHS, one DVD, and all are terribly cropped, so badly that it looks as if buildings are having conversations with each other. Few films suffer as badly from pan and scan as this one, as director Robert Parrish seems to have been so enamored with the widescreen process that he tended to use both sides of the screen at once, neglecting the middle. Another user comments that we see the entire inhabitants of a church massacred at the beginning; not in any of the copies I have. There are some abrupt cuts of peasants firing their rifles, one Mexican officer is shot, Shaw and Landau celebrating, and that's it. We never find out why Shaw has become a priest (if he really is), we never find out what happens to Don Carlos (Savalas) although I suspect he was called home to star in Kojak, as his departure seems arbitrary. And there is a strange flashback sequence where Michael Craig (Mysterious Island) is dancing around in a bowler hat and bad suit in the great old English music hall tradition to the 1960 hit BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS, not sung by Johnny Horton here but with some lyrics I've never heard before. On the plus side, the location is great, a huge old ruined fortress with Escher-style stairs leading nowhere, some nice scenery-chewing by Robert Shaw, and good performances by Stevens, Landau, Lettieri, and Telly Savalas as Telly Savalas. I didn't really like this film, but I haven't exactly seen it. I will seek the widescreen version and make my decision then. | 0neg
|
There are some really terrific ideas in this violent movie that, if executed clearly, could have elevated it from Spaghetti-western blandness into something special. Unfortunately, A TOWN CALLED HELL is one of the worst edited movies imaginable! Scenes start and end abruptly, characters leave for long stretches, the performances (and accents) of the actors are pretty inconsistent, etc.<br /><br />Robert Shaw is a Mexican(!) revolutionary who, after taking part in wiping out a village, stays on to become a priest(!)...ten years later the village is being run by "mayor" Telly Salavas. Stella Stevens arrives looking for revenge on the man who killed her husband. Colonel Martin Landau arrives looking for Shaw. They all yell at each other A LOT and they all shoot each other A LOT. Fernando Rey is in it too (as a blind man). The performances aren't bad, but they are mightily uneven. Savalas has an accent sometimes as does Landau (who is really grating here). Shaw and Rey prove that they are incapable of really embarrassing themselves and Stevens looks pretty foxy (if a bit out of place amongst the sweaty filth). | 0neg
|
This British-Spanish co-production is one of the countless films shot in Spain in the wake of the unexpected phenomenal success enjoyed by the Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns and, as is typical of such genre efforts, features an eclectic assortment of established and emerging international stars: Robert Shaw, Telly Savalas, Stella Stevens, Martin Landau, Fernando Rey, Michael Craig, Al Lettieri, Dudley Sutton, Antonio Mayans, etc. Ironically, however, this incoherent mess of a movie serves as a shining example as to why that most American of film genres became a dying breed in the 1970s and is nowadays practically (or is that officially?) extinct.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this film, not only because the Western is one of my favorite types of movies but also because it had all the qualities, including an intriguing premise, to be a good one - not to mention the fact that my father had purchased a paperback edition of A TOWN CALLED BASTARD's novelization following its original release! As it is, the film's sole virtue (if, indeed, it can even be called that) is its sheer eccentricity: for instance, Stevens, playing a widow out for revenge on the man who betrayed her revolutionary husband, sleeps inside a coffin(!) driven around in a carriage by her dumb manservant(?) Sutton; Savalas, as a blood-thirsty renegade, who at first appears to be the film's main villain, is unceremoniously dispatched by his own henchman Lettieri very early on in the picture; the villain of the piece, then, turns out to be Landau who, in the film's very first scene, is seen pillaging side-by-side our legendary hero-turned-priest Shaw!; Fernando Rey, playing a blind peasant, is the only one who can identify rebel Shaw who, in the end turns out to have been merely a front for...well, nevermind! As you can see, the plot is very confusing and it gets stranger from there! The production team responsible for this film were also behind other Western fare around the same period of time, like CUSTER OF THE WEST (1967), BAD MAN'S RIVER (1971), CAPTAIN APACHE (1971) and PANCHO VILLA (1972). | 0neg
|
"A Town Called Hell" (aka "A Town Called Bastard"), a British/Spanish co-production, was made on the heels of Clint Eastwood's success in the Italian made "Man With No Name" trilogy. The template used in most of these films was to hire recognizable American actors, whose careers were largely in decline and dub their voices. This film is no exception except for the fact that they used some British actors as well.<br /><br />It's difficult to summarize the plot, but here goes. The story opens with rebels or whatever, led by Robert Shaw and Marin Landau raiding a church and killing everyone inside, including the priest. Fast forward to the subject town a few years later where the Shaw character is masquerading as a priest. The mayor of the town (Telly Savalas) is a brutal leader who thinks nothing of meting out justice with his gun.<br /><br />Throw into the mix a grieving widow Alvira (Stella Stevens) who is searching for her husband's killer. Add to this the fact that she rides around in a hearse lying dead like in a coffin for God knows why. After the mayor is murdered by his henchman La Bomba (Al Lettieri) the town is invaded by a federale Colonel (Landau) in search of a rebel leader (I'm sorry but the name escapes me). The Colonel takes over the town and begins summarily executing the townsfolk to force them to reveal the identity of the leader.<br /><br />Even though they opened the film side by side, its difficult to tell from the dialog that the Landau and Shaw characters know each other. A blind man (Fernando Rey) claims he can identify the rebel leader by touching his face. He does so and..............................................<br /><br />I'm sure the principals regretted making this film. It's just plain awful and well deserving of my dreaded "1" rating. Shaw spends most of the film fixating his trademark stare at whomever is handy. Even Landau can't salvage this film. The beautiful Ms. Stevens is totally wasted here too. Having just made Peckinpah's "The Ballad of Cable Hogue" the previous year, I found it odd that she would appear in this mess of a movie. Savalas made several of these pictures, ("Pancho Villa" and "Horror Express" come to mind) during he pre-Kojak period.Michael Craig is also in it somewhere as a character called "Paco".<br /><br />Fernando Rey appeared in many of these "westerns" although he would emerge to play the villain in the two "French Connection" films. Al Lettieri would also emerge with a role in "The Godfather" (1972) and go on to other memorable roles before his untimely death in 1975.<br /><br />In all fairness, the version I watched ran only 88 minutes rather than the longer running times of 95 or 97 minutes listed on IMDb, however I can't see where an extra 7 or 8 minutes would make much difference.<br /><br />Avoid this one. | 0neg
|
This is definitely one of the weirder 70's movies out there, and it's most notable for kicking off a decade of Bigfoot hysteria. It is also notable for the little touches of insanity throughout the movie, especially when the dark, moody first half is replaced by a MUSICAL INTERLUDE of all things (as another user pointed out, one of the songs is dedicated to a character, Travis Crabtree, who paddles around in a canoe for a while, then... leaves, never to be seen again). Although it's painfully dated now, i's still a fun scary movie to show to kids, and anyone who enjoys either Bigfoot lore or 70's hillbilly culture is bound to get a kick out of this. My favorite part: a guy gets so scared that he jumps headfirst through a door (!?) and the narrator explains he went unconscious from "shock." Uh, I'd say breaking a door with his head is more likely why he went unconscious, but whatever.<br /><br />4/10 stars, or 7/10 if you like bad Americana. | 0neg
|
This grainy film has a cult following and one of those word-of-mouth features you just had to see. Maybe hard to believe, but there is a rural community in southwest Arkansas, Fouke, that knows the legend is true. This tale is told in documentary-style narrated by Vern Stierman and filmed in actual locations talking to actual folks involved. The legend changes with the telling, but during the late 60s and most of the 70s the surrounding area of Fouke was visited by a Bigfoot-like creature that traveled along Boggy Creek. Long limbed with three toes and standing over 7 foot tall, this hirsute creature periodically caused damage and frightened the 'bejeebers' out of most of the community. I personally crossed over the small Boggy Creek bridge in 1974, and yes the hair on the back of my neck did rise. Of course it was about 1 a.m. in the rain. By the time I arrived in Shreveport, I was laughing. | 0neg
|
I was expecting a B-Movie French musical. After all, Dhéry, Blanche, DeFunès were superstars of low budget French films of that time. And it is in color! But I have hallucination in this unbelievable one hour 30 of pure mediocrity. Musical numbers are awful, and comedy is absolutely boring and stupid. And the songs? What songs? This is just a succession of bad numbers, one after another. The only one very rare thing about that thing is the nudity of women. It was not familiar at that time. In fact, some numbers are just there to show us topless women. It adds to the mediocrity! And try to find young Michel Serrault, the future great actor of French cinema, in a bit part as a musician, in his very first movie. Good luck! | 0neg
|
I purchased this movie on blu-ray because it promised great visuals and music. I was also a great fan of a similar movie... Baraka. The movie is very much styled after Baraka, wide angles, very similar shots with cameras set to capture long time passage in each shot. Even some of the scenes were identical (the street with traffic). Whereas Baraka told a great story, juxtaposing nature, man-made environments, spirituality, and horrors of the world in an engrossing fashion and great music, this movie just jumped from shot to shot with no encompassing story, mediocre musical score, and then.... POOF, it's finished! I thought there must be some sort of mistake! History of the world? Half the movie is Egypt and landscape (looks like Arizona, but I didn't bother to check). Seriously folks, this is horrible, rent it if you must, but do not buy it. The filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for putting this out. | 0neg
|
I wasn't particularly impressed by this movie that has lackluster music and only lasts 40 minutes. Thank God, because I was falling asleep. I makes excellent use of time lapse photography to display the passage of time in the movement of light and shadow, people, water, clouds, etc. Unfortunately, that's all it is.<br /><br />My preference is for its predecessor, the excellent Koyaanisqatsi made in 1983 at 87 minutes and to prove that a sequel can be better than the original, Powaqqatsi made in 1988 running 90 minutes.<br /><br />Try them both. | 0neg
|
Who ever wrote the two or three glowing reviews were either involved in the making of this film, term used loosely, or bank rolling it, and should the latter be the case, I would want my seven dollars back! The actors, again term used loosely, are awful, in fact almost none of them did anything ever again which is a relief. The scenery and everything about this screams, we had 7 dollars to work with and a day to do it in. Was this filmed in someones back yard? Everything about this project says, low budget. The actors at best were D list. Do not waste your time, unless of course you want to take it back and try to get the rental back. The lead bad guy looks like that punk from the 70s show that ended up marrying his grandmother dummee moore. My local blockbuster video store lists this as the movie most returned with sad commentary attached. Even as a 99 cent rental this flick gathers dust. Someone really must have owed some favors. This is a super stinker and I give it 10 turds. | 0neg
|
We rented the DVD hoping for a good western. The film was pretty and the scenes reasonable, but the ideas were very bad. Here are my problems with the film.<br /><br />In the first part, why exactly did the bad guy kill the mine owner? Not really connected to the movie except to establish how bad he was and to have a hideout.<br /><br />The bank employee gone bad just acts too poorly to convincingly decide to hire killers to off his employers. At least keep us guessing. No character developed at all for the bank owners or the bank employee.<br /><br />Very long delay in much of anything happening.<br /><br />Absurd premise that Martin still needed to see the judge after the gang confessed to killing the in-laws. Even more absurd that he confesses to judge and judge will not listen to the sheriff guy. even more ridiculous that Martin his hung and rope breaks then the sheriff takes him at gunpoint to finally head back to his town and save his wife from the bad bank employee. Wouldn't he just return after the quick dispatch of the gang to save wife and arrest bad bank guy? Just send the judge a note that gang confessed before being killed on trail????!!! Overall, very sad acting and no point to movie. | 0neg
|
THE DECOY is one of those independent productions, made by obvious newcomers, but it doesn't have all the usual flaws that sink most such films. It has a definite story, it has adequate acting, the photography is very good, the hero and the bad guy are both formidable men, and the background music isn't overdone. This is a DVD New Release, so people will be looking here to see if it's worthwhile. I don't know where all the 10's come from, as there's no way this film is that good --- even if you're the filmmaker's mother. <br /><br />The last film we saw at a theater was Warner's trashing of J K Rawlings much-loved and excellent book, Order of the Phoenix. In comparing THE DECOY with PHOENIX, consider that PHOENIX (as made by Warners) had no story, certainly no acting was allowed by the director, the photography was dreadful, and the wall-of-sound overbearing musical score was just a mess. I rated Phoenix a "1" because the scale doesn't go any lower. THE DECOY is 4 times better -- in all regards.<br /><br />If you have the opportunity, give THE DECOY a chance. Remember, this isn't "Decoy 3 -- the Shootout" or any such nonsense. It's original. If your expectations aren't overblown by the foolish "10" scores here, you might just enjoy the film on its own terms. | 0neg
|
Great western I hear you all say! Brilliant first effort! Well I'm not sure what film you all watched but it must have been a different one to the one I saw. Great westerns or indeed good films of any genre have characters you can believe in and this film had none! The acting was poor to say the least and I couldn't care less about any of the characters, making the whole film pointless. the story was too big for the makers and perhaps they should try their hand at making straight to TV low budget rubbish like you see on those "FACT OR FICTION" programmes on sci-fi.<br /><br />Please, if you are looking for a good film, a great western or even just an enjoyable hour and a half, please look elsewhere. | 0neg
|
After reading the other reviews for this film I am of the opinion that the high markers are probably paid studio lackeys as the film I saw was absolutely dire, with wooden acting, lacklustre scripting and plodding predictable directing, one of the few plus points has to be the stunning scenery as this film features some stunning backdrops with great sweeping vistas and dramatic skies and wide open prairies, sadly when the most memorable thing in a film is the part featured behind the actors this has to be a warning sign as to the quality of the movie, all in all a thoroughly uninspiring addition to the western genre which even at the very reasonable price it can be obtained on DVD is best to avoid. | 0neg
|
This movie rivals "Plan 9" as one of the dumbest movie ever made. Always be concerned when the same person is the:<br /><br />1. Star 2. Director 3. Producer 4. Writer 5. Stuntman, and 6. Editor. Unfortunately, Justin Kreinbrink did all 6 jobs! IMDb shows that he and his father were western 'stunt men'. So maybe that was the problem. <br /><br />Here's just ONE example from the film: in the film the sheriff has to take a witness to another town for protection. Of course, the bad guys find out and are waiting for them. But, what happens? The good guys are riding along and a shot rings out and hits a tree near them. When the camera shows us the bad guys they're all just sitting on a log, chatting. What's wrong with this picture!<br /><br />I could go on. Perhaps this film was meant as a comedy. If so, it didn't do that well either. | 0neg
|
When his in-laws are viciously murdered by a gang of thugs, a young deputy is ordered to escort his mute friend, forced to take the rap by the gang, to Tucson for trial and ending up having to face the real killers along the way.<br /><br />The Decoy is a real-life decoy sent to video stores to lure you away from better films! It's talky, illogical, slow, and ultimately very boring.<br /><br />There's some good costumes, sets, and photography but nothing else is good about this vanity project from writer/director/producer/star Justin Kreinbrink, who apparently had too much money on his hands.<br /><br />They used to make westerns like this, that were under an hour long. Trim this of about half it's length and you might have something watchable. | 0neg
|
In a nutshell: this is a cookie cutter romantic comedy that really WANTS and TRIES to be something more. It wants to be Harold and Maude, Annie Hall, The Graduate. It wants to be deep and human. It has interesting camera shots, lighting, music, editing, all of which give it the feel of an important movie. The dialog is smart -- at times. There are some "laugh out loud" moments.<br /><br />But here's what keeps it from ultimately being anything more than a formulaic late-night-cable, in-flight, time-killer: <br /><br />1. David Schwimmer -- how many times can Joe sad-sack puppy dog stare blankly into space with his jaw hanging open before it starts to get annoying? Maybe some drool would have helped.<br /><br />2. Gwenneth Paltrow -- she's really flat here and not just in the chest. Her role is supposed to be this lively, nice, caring girl who just keeps getting herself into wrong situations, is very confused as a result, and that is why a sad-sack loser like Schwimmer has any chance with her. But Gwenneth plays her very dull. Combine this with puppy-dog drool-face (above) and you have very little chemistry to care about.<br /><br />(I kept picturing someone else in this role -- Kate Hudson for example.) <br /><br />3. The script and the plot -- the stuff that happens just basically doesn't ring true; all the problems get wrapped up in the end with such a neat and tidy bow on top that it seems like a whistle blew and the script writers just said "oops, time to wrap it up, got a train to catch!" So they pulled out the Hollywood formula book, checked off all the boxes, and went home. | 0neg
|
Gwyneth Paltrow is absolutely great in this movie, but the story is, unfortunately, half-baked, and David Schwimmer's energy is sort of like cold mush. When he closes his mouth and gets serious for a moment or two there is a rush of what-might-have-been. Who thought 25-year-old kiddies would be entertaining? | 0neg
|
I'm not to keen on The Pallbearer, it's not too bad, but just very slow at the times. As the movie goes on, it gets a little more interesting, but nothing brilliant. I really like David Schwimmer and I think he's good here. I'm not a massive Gwyneth Paltrow fan, but I don't mind her sometimes and she's okay here. The Pallbearer is not a highly recommended movie, but if you like the leads then you might enjoy it. | 0neg
|
I wish I had my rental money back from this piece of trash so I could donate it to the Home for Aged Actors. Total rubbish!! Five people watched this movie at the same time and there wasn't one single laugh to be heard, lots of yawning though. Paltrow's a beautiful woman and she was the best thing to look at in the entire so-called comedic movie.. | 0neg
|
no comment - stupid movie, acting average or worse... screenplay - no sense at all... SKIP IT! | 0neg
|
The Pallbearer is a disappointment and at times extremely boring with a love story that just doesn't work partly with the casting of Gwyneth Paltrow (Julie). Gwyneth Paltrow walks through the entire film with a confused look on her face and its hard to tell what David Schwimmer even sees in her.<br /><br />However The Pallbearer at times is funny particularly the church scene and the group scenes with his friends are a laugh but that's basically it. Watch The Pallbearer for those scenes only and fast forward the rest. Trust me you aren't missing much. | 0neg
|
... You can't exactly shove her out of the way, because she's old; and if you were being charitable you might say that the ponderous gait she ambles along with isn't really her fault. Nevertheless, in these circumstances it's often difficult not to become irritated when you find yourself dragging your heels in her wake. So it is with "The Pallbearer", an attempt to do something 'different' with a romantic comedy that in this way is chiefly hamstrung because the venue is all wrong; sort of like showing off your 'breakdancing' skills at a grandparent's funeral.<br /><br />To further extend the metaphor (perhaps unwisely!); like the old lady, one starts to feel with the set-up of the film that its demise cannot be far away. Sure enough, this particular 'death' is agonizingly protracted, slowly chipping away at our reserves of empathy in tiny little increments, as depressingly we come to the realisation that the proceedings are only headed in one direction: Downhill. Its laboured attempts at 'humour' can be seen coming a mile off - again, not unlike the grim inevitability of death!<br /><br />Returning once again to the image of 'dragging heels', the main character, Tom, is shown to ceaselessly repeat this action throughout his life. If there are indeed degrees of 'pathetic', then this sap is possibly a good few notches ahead of Schwimmer's other - more famous - role. To find oneself in the awkward position of having to align audience sympathies with a character even MORE 'clueless' than Ross is certainly a tough ask even for as 'able' a comic performer as Schwimmer, but I guess he can find fault with himself for signing on to some seriously 'echoing' situations in the first place.<br /><br />How will he ever escape his most famous portrayal if he's picking scripts where the characters could almost be 'interchangeable', even if the situations aren't? A man with a longstanding high-school crush on someone he hasn't seen for years. Sound familiar... ? Paltrow is nothing else if not bland in her 'Rachel' role, but all of this going over old ground would perhaps be forgivable if the noticeable DIFFERENCES present weren't so incongruous as well. Unfortunately, the romantic element is so well-worn it's threadbare, and the 'backdrop' is so inappropriate that it seems the best way to describe the resultant film is as something of a 'stiff'... ! 2/10. | 0neg
|
Some 25 year olds behave like teenagers, coping with the death of a high-school mate, trying to find their purpose in live and love. The script is so lame that I had to force myself to even finish this movie. Stay away from it. 1/10 | 0neg
|
This film is advertised as a clever romantic comedy. It is neither clever nor romantic and it is definitely not an effective comedy. The fortunes of the well meaning yet pathetic character, "Tom", oscillate from one extremely embarrassing disaster to another. The only saving graces are the competent performance by Toni Collete and the frequency with which we glimpse Paltrow's pleasant face. Overall, to be avoided! | 0neg
|
The interplay between the characters is a moral disaster. You end up disliking most of the characters and you don't particularly like any of them.<br /><br />Even the two main characters played by David and Gwen are so badly written that you really don't care one bit about them. The movie has no plot, no direction and no purpose. The single redeeming quality of the movie was to treat it as a glimpse into the messed up lives of a few losers - and that's hardly stimulating even as an afternoon waste. | 0neg
|
Life is really too short for movies like this. I knew it couldn't be good when I realized what I'd already suspected - that David Schwimmer would be playing the exact same type of person he plays in 'Friends'.<br /><br />Let's face it, either the guy can't play anything but a nerd or he is never offered any other parts. I have a feeling that it's a mixture of both.<br /><br />And I have to say that it is extremely difficult to like a movie that utterly wastes the considerable talents of Gwyneth Paltrow, Barbara Hershey, Toni Collette and Carol Kane!!! | 0neg
|
Let's see...I'm trying to practice finding the positive in everything, so what kind thing can I say about the Pallbearer?<br /><br />I know! The performances were -- no, that won't work as they succeeded in draining all personality from Gwyneth Paltrow, usually so vibrant, and ended up creating caricatures out of Carol Kane and Barbara Hershey...<br /><br />Oh - how 'bout the story -- nope. That isn't gonna fly either, as it was doze-inducing. What was the genre anyway? It wasn't funny, that rules out comedy. It wasn't interesting enough to be dramatic. Was that a romance between Schwimmer and Paltrow? I have to ask, as I can't be sure - let's just call it "losers in like." I'm sure those behind this film started with a vision, I mean, they must have had one to pitch to the studio suits, but I need help finding it.<br /><br />Even if I were a patient person who could forgive the pure stupidity of the story, I couldn't in good conscience recommend a film that allows a guy to go into a professional job interview in a windbreaker and messy, fluffy, stupid hair. Speaking of hair -- are we supposed to be amused by the deliberate black roots and platinum locks worn by Hershey?<br /><br />What am I doing? I already lost 97 irretrievable minutes in the actual watching of the movie -- I cannot devote any more time to this loser. | 0neg
|
Not even Bob Hope, escorted by a raft of fine character actors, can save this poorly written attempt at wartime comedy, as his patented timing has little which which to work. The plot involves a Hollywood film star named Don Bolton (Hope), and his attempt to evade military service at the beginning of World War II, followed by his enlistment by mistake in a confused attempt to court a colonel's daughter (Dorothy Lamour). Bolton's agent, played by Lynne Overman, and his assistant, portrayed by Eddie Bracken, enlist with him and the three are involved in various escapades regarding training exercises, filmed in the Malibu, California, hills. Paramount budgeted handsomely for this effort, employing some of its top specialists, but direction by the usually reliable David Butler was flaccid, and this must be attributed to a missing comedic element in the scenario. A shift toward the end of the film to create an opportunity for heroism by Bolton is still-born with poor stunt work and camera action in evidence. Oddly, Lynne Overman is given the best lines and this veteran master of the sneer does very well by them. Dorothy Lamour looks lovely and acts nicely, as well, and it is ever a delight to see and hear Clarence Kolb, as her father, whose voice is unique on screen or radio, but there is little they can do to save this film, cursed as it is with an error in script assignment. | 0neg
|
In one word: excruciating. I was advised to read some articles about this film's philosophical meanings afterward, but, having sat through the movie's interminable 115 minutes and being slowly crushed beneath its bloated symbolism and lava-flowing oppressiveness, it seemed better to just report my reactions to the movie. After all, who goes to see a movie with a syllabus in hand? And this flick was dismal. Lead actor Claude Laydu, from the film's opening to its end, wears the same wearying and annoying mask of agony as to be practically indistinguishable from the film's eternal, dreary voice-over. Filming one over the other might have worked better than subjecting an audience to both, as they basically say the same thing: The priest of Ambricourt is a wretched human being. The story, about a persecuted priest who tries to help out a troubled rich family, does nothing toward making its characters remotely interesting or sympathetic, as the family are a bunch of unpleasant weirdos, and the priest, himself, comes across as a nosy pest. The last 30 minutes suggests some breath-taking message about grace and one man's suffering equaling that of others, but due to all the indulgent close-ups of a suffering Laydu and the vague subtext in Robert Bresson's script, all I felt was, Finally, it's over, let's have some ice-cream. Interesting for fans of Bresson fanatic Paul Schrader, just to see how many elements of character and setting Schrader carried into in his own scripts and movies, especially "Taxidriver", "Raging Bull" and "Light Sleeper". | 0neg
|
I kind of feel like a genius; I feel like I'm the only one who saw through this fake film. I watched it three times, once with commentary, and I found myself getting annoyed at all the close-ups, all the times the screen just blacks out, and worst of all, I feel the film never really resolves anything. Yes, the priest dies, but he didn't really seem at peace with the town that gave him so much grief, or with himself. That and he was an idiot. If it weren't for the commentary by Peter Cowie which explained not only the movie but the book it came from, I wouldn't have been able to stomach it at all. I enjoy French movies, but this is one that was completely absurd.<br /><br />Diary of a Country Priest is filmed in beautiful black and white photography but, that alone cannot save this deadly dull tripe. Scene after scene of extreme close-ups where characters don't say anything until the camera cuts away and goes to a black out do NOT make an interesting or relevant story. How this film ever became a classic is mind boggling: it reminds me more of The Emperor's New Clothes.<br /><br />Yes, Claude Laydu's performance is heartfelt and thought provoking, if you are a sadist, but this film left me feeling empty because overall it is a weak impression of the Catholic priesthood, which is an ignoble and inglorious institution of corruption. The young priest's triumph over the countess's pride is a weak scene but 90% of the film will drag you down with its dreary introspection and window into the young priest's melancholy thoughts. This priest doesn't come across so much as being humble as he does just plain pitiful.<br /><br />Being that I don't speak or understand French I was looking forward to doing the English SUBTITLE thing to help understand the film. Well, the English SUBTITLE is at times impossible to view/read and the text rolls by so quickly that there was much I could not read (and I am not a particularly slow reader - I just finished Dostoyevsky in 3 days). <br /><br />I really wanted to like this film . I try out everything "chosen" by the Criterion Collection, and yet can not see why in many ways this one merits some sort of critical nod. However, I sat through this entire two hour film yearning to feel some sort of empathy for the main character, and it never materialized. He just seemed like a victim rather than a fighter. And for that, I say it stunk. | 0neg
|
I thoroughly enjoyed Bilal's graphic novel when it came out, and was amazed when I saw the trailer for this film, and even more so when I found that Bilal had directed it himself. The film, however, was a major letdown. The visuals are nowhere near the rich and gritty texture of the original artworks, and the story is poorly told. Bilal seems to have chosen to focus on the more esoteric aspects of the graphic novel, and he doesn't do a very good job at it, either.<br /><br />The most enjoyable part of the original graphic novel was the friendship-hate relationship between Nikopol and Horus. They were both out of their right time and place, forced together by circumstance. Most of all, they were funny and likable. Not so here. Nikopol has no discernible personality whatsoever, and Horus is a pompous twit who just wants to get laid. Even though the film is French, Horus doesn't have to be!<br /><br />We have all seen films we enjoyed, but wouldn't recommend to everyone, for some reason or other. I wouldn't recommend Immortel to anyone, except maybe as a warning not to overreach your talent and resources. Bilal's a master storyteller, but obviously not a master of every visual medium. | 0neg
|
I saw this at an arty cinema that was also showing "Last Days" and some Charlie Chaplin films. Based on the quality of the other features, I decided to give "Immortel" a chance. I nearly walked out of this movie, and I LIKE science-fiction! The story is set in a futuristic New York city, filled with Blade Runner-style sky advertisements and some similar debates about cloning/synthetic humans. Unfortunately, the screenplay was not condensed enough for an hour-and-forty-five-minute movie. Three groups exist in this world: humans, artificial humans, and Egyptian gods. The artificial humans seem to have the upper hand and control the politics of the city. The humans are slaves and are used for eugenics and organ donation. The Egyptian gods have a floating pyramid (modeled on the Great Pyramid of Khufu, and complete with a deteriorated exterior, leaving a smooth "cap" on the pyramid. Wouldn't a floating futuristic pyramid be in perfect condition?). The pyramid rests above the city and nobody on the ground understands what it is or why it's there. I won't bore you with the so-called plot, but there is lots of unnecessary gore and many gross-out scenes. The film, as I said, looks to have been influenced by Blade Runner, and perhaps also by The Fifth Element and The Matrix. At the end of the film credits were listed thank-yous to the United Kingdom, France, and Italy. The film is FRENCH, but uses British actors who don't speak French. Hence, it is obvious that their French dialog has been dubbed. This is a distraction, and I also thought that switching back and forth between real humans and animations quite distracting. It doesn't help that the animations are poor--no better than a video game. Skip this one. | 0neg
|
I love science fiction, I am fascinated by Egyptian mythology and I appreciate digital animation. I figured a movie that combines these three would be at least enjoyable. I could not have been more wrong: The story (or actually the lack there of) was completely uninspired and lacks imagination - while imagination usually is the biggest component of any science fiction story. The dialogue and acting are even worse than in an average porno movie. Especially Thomas Kretschmann gives new meaning to the term 'bad performance'. Bad acting wouldn't have been such a huge problem if only 'director' Bilal didn't take himself so seriously; all the lines sound like they are supposed to be poetic, it looks like Bilal really thinks he has made a piece of art here. Well, there's no art or poetry to be found in this piece of junk, only pretentiousness! This man should really stick to making comics, since he fails on all possible accounts as a director. Worst of all is the terrible digital animation, which is so ugly that it actually turns watching this movie into a physically painful experience. The graphics look so fake they even make the werewolves in 'Van Helsing' look like live actors! And since half the characters are CGI-animated, it is quite a problem that the CGI-effects look so fake. If the Egyptian Gods actually exist then Bilal's a dead guy, since they will no doubt take gruesome revenge on him for the ridiculous way in which he portrays them in this disastrously bad movie. | 0neg
|
This movie seems to start in the middle, introduces peripheral players as if they were significant and presents main characters without any substance and paper-thin and/or impenetrable back-stories. Almost nobody has a credible or discernible motivation for their actions in this film. The plot rambles and ultimately goes nowhere, the dialogue is clunky and trite and the director has little concept of how to get the best from his actors. It almost feels like there's a first half of this movie but it never got made.<br /><br />We're told that a mysterious pyramid has appeared over New York City and that Central Park has inexplicably become an arctic wasteland. Yet none of this seems to have caused much of a stir amongst the general population and is only of minimal concern to the government.<br /><br />We're presented with the "evil corporation" in Eugenics but that's really just a convenient conceit to populate the universe with a couple power-tripping minions. The whole "Eugenics-is-bad" double-entendre is heavy-handed and never really pans out here. We're supposed to care about the central characters but we never learn enough about them to know why. So much about this world is underdeveloped or completely undeveloped that it comes off as a 1-hour, 40-minute fatalistic rationalization for rape.<br /><br />On the "ground-breaking" digitally animated world created here, all I can say is that at about the same time as this film was made several other directors did the same thing with more seamless and believable results.<br /><br />After spending the time to watch this film the most burning question left in my mind was, "so what?" | 0neg
|
The Good:<br /><br />Effective color scheme. Good costumes. Top notch set production. Well detailed CGI buildings and vehicles.<br /><br />The Bad:<br /><br />Horrible mixture of actors with all CGI actors mixes Fifth Element with Final Fantasy. The CGI actors look even worse than video games from a few years ago. Flawed logic. A giant pyramid shows up and no one researches it, no one really even questions it? And there is no explanation as to why the god Horus was even cast out, nor was there any reason why he must do something as trivial as impregnate Jill?<br /><br />The Ugly:<br /><br />Awful script. So many unnecessary subplots with too many ideas that are not fully realized. The dialog was almost laughable at some points. Random characters and events that are not needed. Dull characters. Jill is supposed to be this mystery, but apparently she was just a mystery to the writer. There is nothing to her. She is uninteresting and boring to watch. She has no substance, no texture. Her character has no redeeming qualities. In fact, there is not one character in the entire film who has any purpose, any goals (besides the obvious one of Horus), any motivation. They are weak and ill-conceived. There are no stakes - the key to screen writing. Horus will not become immortal, but, big deal, he is a bad guy. One cannot even decipher whether Horus or Jill is the main character. That is the problem: devoting half the movie to each character means the writer never fully explores one character, never brings one to fruition. They are cardboard cut-outs who walk around and talk and pretty much do nothing but explore the fine set pieces. First time director pacing. Slow, slow, slow. I am still watching the movie as I write this. I cannot pay attention because it is boring. Everything is flat. Even the action is not interesting because it is short-lived and sometimes unnecessary.<br /><br />Overall:<br /><br />Not worth a watch. Threadbare story, sub-par character development, corny CGI does not save the nice set production. | 0neg
|
While others may contend that by viewing other works by Bilal, one will better appreciate this movie, it does fail in one major way. It does not stand on its own. The plot is a mishmash that is confuses symbolism with substance. Here's an idea start with a definite story. Then craft symbolism around it. We start with two different narratives, this female that is somehow turning human, a "god" that is for some reason being judged, but getting one last fling on Earth, and this mysterious John character who seems to be developing some sort of "resort" just beyond the bounds of the city. Why? None of these questions are answered. But do we care, no. There is no development to want us to empathize with any character in the story, the closest we get Jill and even then the development is spotty at best. Unfortunately the movie gets caught up in the the whole visually impressive (which it is,) but at the expense of motivic development. I would love to see this rewritten by someone who could distance themselves from the material a bit and not have to feel that every image has to be in the picture. | 0neg
|
I love the comics. Although I do have problems fully understanding the stories the visual style is unique with all its dirt, dust and decay. So I thought I knew what I was up for. Surprisingly I understood the main plot but some extremely poorly decisions where made for its visual style. <br /><br />I mean - really bad looking "CG human actors"-in close ups?
Why?! It did not work at all!! Horus - and the other Egyption gods - was successfully made in CG and very close to the comic version. <br /><br />I think with real actors this movie could have been a cult movie. <br /><br />What a shame. | 0neg
|
I sat through this film and i have to say it only just managed to keep my attention. The film would have been a bit more bearable if i did not have to watch the awful CGI, for future reference to the industry if your going to use CGI watch this so you know what to avoid.<br /><br />Apparently this is supposed to be a graphic novel for the screen but all i saw was a bad movie which bears no resemblance to a graphic novel whatsoever.<br /><br />All in all, the story was not as bad as the CGI, i was quite impressed with the acting and thought the casting was good and little more character info would have been nice as it did get a little confusing for me on occasion but that's not surprising as like i said it only just kept my attention, but in all honestly i wish i had given this one a miss. | 0neg
|
The movie remains in the gray for far too long. Very little gets explained as the movie progresses, with as a result lots of weird sequences that seem to have a deeper meaning but because of the way of storytelling they become only just weird and not understandable to watch. It sort of forces you to watch the movie again but no way I'm going to do that. It is that I watched this movie in the morning, I'm sure of it that if I watched this movie in the evening I would had fallen asleep. To me the movie was like a poor man's "Blade Runner".<br /><br />The movie leaves far too many questions and improbabilities. It makes the movie leave a pointless and non-lasting impression.<br /><br />Also the weird look of the movie doesn't help much. The movie is halve CGI/halve real life but it's not done halve as good, impressive, spectacular and imaginative as for instance would be the case in later movies such as "Sin City" and "300". They even created halve of the characters of the movie by computer, which seemed like a very pointless- and odd choice, also considering that the character animation isn't too impressive looking. Sure the futuristic environment is still good looking and the movie obviously wasn't cheap to make but its style over substance and in this case that really isn't a positive thing to say.<br /><br />Some of the lines are also absolutely horrendous and uninteresting. The main God of the movie constantly says lines such as; 'I'm going to do this but it's none of your concern why I want to do it'. Than just don't say anything at all Mr. Horus! It's irritating and a really easy thing to put in movie, if you don't care to explain anything about the plot. Also the deeper questions and meanings of the movie gets muddled in the drivel of the movie and its script.<br /><br />The actors still did their very best. They seemed like they believed in the project and were sure of it that what they were making would be something special. So I can't say anything negative about them.<br /><br />The story and movie is far from original. It rip-offs from a lot of classic and semi-classic, mostly modern, science-fiction movies. It perhaps is also the reason why the movie made a very redundant impression on me.<br /><br />A failed and uninteresting movie experiment.<br /><br />3/10 | 0neg
|
My first attempt at watching this ended in 8 minutes, roughly after the TV report scene, which I couldn't handle. It went approximately like this:<br /><br />Reporter 1: Hmm, there's a pyramid in our skies. Reporter 2: I think it's aliens. *awkward silence* Reporter 1: In other news...<br /><br />A few days later I watched it to the end, and it wasn't as horrible as I've imagined, but there are serious problems with this. About half of the plot can be easily discarded. And the other half should be expanded to explain the background story or something.<br /><br />What use are the detective, the eugenics people, and the monsters which are disposed of momentarily by Horus? More amusing was the monopoly scene. "We're all powerful "Gods", who have lived for aeons, and of all the games in the multiverse we happen to play monopoly." Monopoly? Monopoly?! Even Erich von Dainiken looks coherent, compared to that.<br /><br />The other half is terribly lacking. What did our protagonist do to get himself cryo-frozen? Why was there no big event when he was released at the end? He had those pesky followers, remember? What happened to normal humans? What's the deal with the masked guy? How did the blue-haired girl appear? What's with her eyesight? Etcetera, etcetera.<br /><br />Visually it's OK, more or less, if you disregard the Egyptian Gods looking like walking turds with rotweiller heads. | 0neg
|
Knowing Enki Bilal's comics for quite some time, I had to see this movie. I have thought this would be a good way for the artist as Bilal to spread his art and ideas to wider audience. I have also thought this would be a good movie to recommend, and I thought I will enjoy watching it... I was wrong! The movie was a true torture to watch. The idea has potential... but, movie leaves way too much to be desired, and basically everyone who sees this movie is left with impression that he could do it better. I will not make suggestion whether you should see this movie or not. Chances are if you're reading these pages that you have already seen it, or that you're gonna see it - but be prepared for very bad 102 minutes. | 0neg
|
....CAUSE IT'S CRAP! The kind of movie that makes you want to go and smack the movie maker and say "WHY?". Horrible camera work...count the times the camera tries to remain steady on one person and can't. The dialog is ridiculous. The acting is comical. It looks like they took over a ghost town in the west to see if they could make a movie on the least amount of money possible. I'd bet $10 they used home video cameras to make this. Either that, or most of the cameramen were drunk. Truly the trailers are more entertaining than the movie. If you ever want to host a "Worst Movie Party", bring this one. Want more entertainment...stare at a wall. | 0neg
|
Where do they get the money to make films like this? I mean, there's nothing redeeming about this film. None of the actors are known, the writing is terrible, the photography is blurry, the story wanders between being a bad version of Repo Man and a nicklodeon western and the acting is unbelievable. For someone who watches all kinds of film, good and bad, I must admit that this film is about the worst I've seen since Attack of the Eye People back in the 50's. I don't really like to trash the effort of people trying to create some entertainment or, heaven forbid, art but this film would seem to appeal to no one. The story bends on a mystical contamination of a person who's a bad version of the Celtic Soul eater, although he functions more like a male succubus without the sexual overtones. The bad guys have to team up with the good guys in a town where they are unable to escape from. Take it from there as that, alas, is the best part. My advice is that unless you are into bad mythology, amateurish writing, unconvincing acting and tedious settings, you will best be served by leaving this one on the shelf when you're out renting videos. | 0neg
|
I still find it difficult to comprehend that a movie as bad as this could be made in Hollywood. The acting and story is simply pathetic & the direction is awful. I don't see any logic behind this trash except may be that the director had nothing good to do. I took me ten minutes to realize that i had wasted my precious thirty rupees. It filled me with dismay that i was going to waste some more time of my life on this crap. I bet the movie was made in less than a day. I don't know what category it falls into. Please, avoid this movie at all costs, just do anything, even bang your head against walls but don't go for this movie. | 0neg
|
There is a scene near the beginning after a shootout where horses are running. If something red catches your eye it is because a white van is parked behind a bush by the trail. I thought I had seen bad but this is it. A white van in a western. Did they not catch this? Oh well, and I paid top dollar at the rental. It will make you want to grab your buddies and have them all put in 10 grand and make a better movie. The talking was so so slow, the acting was mostly OK but couldn't be taken seriously due to the poor nature of the filming. There is a door at the sheriffs that looks like a door today with the particular trimming. I say watch this movie, and move Cabin boy into #2 on the worst of all time. | 0neg
|
I just got through watching this DVD at home. We love Westerns, so my husband rented it. He started apologizing to me half way through. The saddles, costumes, accents--everything was off. The part that made me so mad is where the guy didn't shoot the "collector" with his bow and arrow as he was taking the fat guy's soul. His only excuse was "he only had 2 arrows left." We watched it all the way through, and, as someone else said...too many bad things to single out any one reason why it sucked. I mean, the fact that the boy happened to snatch the evil stone from the collector on the same month and day it was found, what's the point of that? And why were there a grave yard where everyone died on April 25 but the people whose souls were taken by the collector were still up walking around? If you want a movie to make fun of after a few beers, this may be your movie. However, if you want a real Western, you will hate this movie. | 0neg
|
I love Westerns. I could watch them all day. "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" is my all time favorite. I watched "Silverado" for probably the 8th time just the other day because it was being featured on CMT. However, this movie, Shiloh Falls is without a doubt the worst Western I have ever watched. The acting was terrible all around. They explain nothing at the end of the mysterious compass looking thing. The only good part I can think of is the good-looking cantina girl. The very noticeable long pauses between the dialog seemed intentional just to make up time to make the movie of acceptable length. This movie wasn't even worth the new rental fee I paid at our local movie rental store. I felt like I was robbed and deserving of a rental refund if there was such a thing. Only reason I finished it was because I hate to not see a movie through to the end. I turned it off half way through because it was so bad. To the director, please do a better job if you decide to make another. This is the kind of movie that has the potential to turn people off to Westerns. | 0neg
|
This movie was a stupid piece of crap. Bad everything. Why is it that we who love western movies get jilted nine out of ten times when renting westerns. It seems that if you don't see names like Robert Duval, Kevin Kostner, or Tom Selleck attached to the cover, it isn't worth messing with. For the most part the main action of Shiloh Falls was taking place in 1892, yet the revolvers used were 1860s models. Even the shooting was bad - in one scene the Marshal fanned his six-shooter about nine times and couldn't hit any of three large men who were only about twenty feet away. I had to turn it off after about 15 minutes of this inanity. Perhaps those who participated in this movie could have taken some lessons at the Sunset Carson School of Acting. | 0neg
|
Nahhh! Leila (Grace Mills) is a teenager turned on to Satan (and LSD) by her archaeologist fiancé Richard. There's a neighborhood hippie demon cult hanging out at the local decrepit ancient castle, where Leila and Richard drink blood, drop drugs, join in sex orgies, dance to lame psychedelic rock and participate in black mass ceremonies where the guys wear pants, masks and capes and the women don't wear anything at all. Unfortunately, these kind of extracurricular activities have left Leila open to demonic possession from the dreaded "spirit of evil." Leila also comes from a screwed up family, which doesn't help either. Her older brother John is a recluse who seems to be in love with her. Her mother Patricia (Maria Perschy) is depressed because she thinks she was responsible for the father's death. To top it off, her sister (Maria Kosti) is a slutty semi pro golfer named (gasp!) Debbie Gibson. There's plenty of hired help around also to waste more time. Two maids (a young one who takes her clothes off a lot and an old one who spies on everyone), plus Udo (Luis Induni), a bald voyeuristic handyman who spies on Leila changing clothes, takes nude pictures of her and sneaks into the pool house to take a sniff of her freshly used bathing suit. Oh yeah and Borg, the pet German Shepherd.<br /><br />Paul Naschy is Father Adrian Dunning, the doubting priest (zzzzz) who starts snooping around after John and Richard both have their heads twisted around backwards. Leila tells him "They say I am perverse and I'm going to prove it is true!" During her birthday party, she tells her guests "You make me sick! I hate you all!" and when mom suggests having a doctor come over she she screeches "I don't want to see that fat ass!" Debbie suggests they commit Leila to a "sanitory," but Leila runs off and joins the cult again. She is rescued (again) and brought back home (for the third time).<br /><br />By this point in the movie, there's only about ten minutes left to go and all we've basically seen is some very boring scenes of characters talking and whining about how terrible and f-ed up their lives are and how Leila is acting weird. It's almost as agonizing to sit through as an Andy Milligan movie, minus the gore and laughs. But finally during the last few minutes we get the movie the title implies - an EXORCIST-like possession flick. Unfortunately, the best part of it are the contact lenses Leila gets to wear. Some cheap time-lapse slashes appear on her arms, legs and face, she gets scabby lips and her eyes take on the appearance of blue and white marbles. She begins reeking of rotted flesh, spits up some clear gunk, starts speaking in her dead dad's voice, sneaks into her mom's bedroom, slaps her around a bit and calls her a "filthy bitch of a whore." In comes Father Adrian, who now finally believes she is indeed possessed, fends off her attempts at seduction, hallucinates frogs and eels are in the kitchen and douses Leila with holy water. Doors open and close, a mirror breaks, there's sudden thunder and her bed rises up off the floor. After she tackles Dunning and the two roll down the stairs, the spirit is out of her and into - guess who? Why, Borg the family pooch! The demon dog then turns on Adrian and chews him up a little before he impales it on a fire poker. Then we get one of the most irritating final shots ever committed to film. It's Leila on the floor going from her hideous appearance back to her normal sexy self. But then there's ANOTHER time-lapse effect that sort of seems to suggest that the demon has possibly reentered her body. It's so badly done, you really have no clue what to make of it, which is the final slap in the face to anyone who has just realized they've wasted an hour and a half on this worthless POS.<br /><br />Screw the contacts, 1 out of 10 it is. | 0neg
|
While I certainly consider The Exorcist to be a horror classic, I have to admit that I don't hold it in quite as high regard as many other horror fans do. As a consequence of that, I haven't seen many of The Exorcist rip-offs, and if Exorcismo is anything to go by, I'll have to say that's a good thing as this film is boring as hell and certainly not worth spending ninety minutes on it! In fairness to the other Exorcist rip-offs, this is often considered one of the worst, and so maybe it wasn't the best place for me to start. It's not hard to guess what the plot will be: basically it's the same as the one in The Exorcist and sees a girl get possessed by a demonic spirit (which happens to be the spirit of her dead father). The village priest is then called in to perform the exorcism. Like many Spanish horror films, this one stars Paul Naschy, who is pretty much the best thing about the film. Exorcismo was directed by Juan Bosch, who previously directed the derivative Spanish Giallo 'The Killer Wore Gloves'. I haven't seen any of his other films, but on the basis of these two: I believe that originality wasn't one of his strong points. There's not a lot of good things I can say about the film itself; it mostly just plods along and the exorcism scene isn't worth waiting for. I certainly don't recommend it! | 0neg
|
Why every horror director wants to imitate "The Exorcist" is a complete riddle to me, as William Friedkin's "classic" is a very overrated film and, in my opinion, not all that tense or shocking. And yet here's another clean rip-off, a Spanish one this time, that shamelessly repeats the story of a young girl that gets possessed by pure evil and turns against her own family. Paul Naschy (who I must admit looks quite hot here) plays the honorable priest who gets approached by John Gibson because his sister Leila's behavior changed drastically since she met her new boyfriend. At first the priest doesn't believe it but when John's body is discovered with its neck twisted, Leila's demonic behavior becomes more noticeable... "Exorcism" is not only very unoriginal, it's also an insufferably boring film! Here Naschy and director Juan Bosch had an open opportunity to make a religiously themed exploitation flick full of shocks and gore, and yet the result is a tame and overall bloodless drama that'll nearly put you to sleep! The last twenty minutes contain some atmospheric moments, albeit very stupid, and there's quite a lot of stylishly filmed female nudity and sleaze. The absolute lack of budget is no real excuse since Paul Naschy already proved before that he has enough imagination to make up for a shortage in money. This is just an awful film, end of story. Other European "The Excorcist" rip-offs are "The Antichrist" and "Beyond the Door" and they suck as well! | 0neg
|
I grew up watching Inspector Gadget. It was, and still is, one of my favorite cartoons, if not my absolute favorite. I learned a lot of geography and history from the spin-off Inspector Gadget's Field Trip. I wanted to slip on a banana peel and become the greatest detective ever.<br /><br />But the film has ruined the reputation of the wonderful cartoon.<br /><br />Matthew Broderick, an actor with potential, was definitely NOT the role for Inspector Gadget. First thing- in the film, Inspector Gadget is smart. Not so in the cartoon. In the film, Gadget solves the mystery mostly by himself. In the cartoon, it was almost always Penny, Brain, and the awesome book (I still want her book!). If Gadget solved the mystery, it was by accident. Gadget in the film seems to be a competent detective, but in the cartoon was pretty dumb, which was where the humor came from.<br /><br />Another thing is that it's too much "Good Guy v. Bad Guy" in the film. It's not just meant to be a silly Saturday morning cartoon. Also, Gadget never should have a love story, but Disney Corporation is filled with idiots.<br /><br />Also I miss the true gadgets that Gadget had, and especially the Gadget car. In the movie it was a chic convertible. In the cartoon it was a sedan police car and could turn into a van. It also barely had any gadgets and was mainly there to get him from place to place.<br /><br />But if anything, the one thing that was terrible about the movie was that it was a feature movie. Inspector Gadget was a silly Saturday morning cartoon. The movie was too serious, too overdone, had too much of a plot and wasn't even remotely as funny.<br /><br />Tip for those who haven't seen it: NEVER see it. EVER. Watch the cartoon, it's a true classic. | 0neg
|
Once again, Disney manages to make a children's movie which totally ignores its background. About the only thing common with this and the original Gadget cartoons is the names. The most glaring errors are the characters - Penny does not have her book, Brain has been reduced from a character to a fancy prop, Dr Claw is more a show-off than an evil villain, etc. but there are more than that. The horrors start from the first minutes of the film - having Gadget as a security guard called John Brown doesn't help identifying him as the classic Inspector Gadget. And right in the beginning we see Disney's blatant attempt to turn every story ever into a love affair between a man and a woman - they introduce Brenda, who only serves to make this movie Disney-compatible. Add to this the fact that the "Claw" seen in this film and the classic Dr Claw are almost diagonally opposite and you'll see this is going to be nowhere near the original storyline. What would help would be a better storyline to replace it - but as you guessed, Disney failed in that too. The whole movie is just Gadget acting silly for silliness's sake and lusting after Brenda. As if to add insult to the injury, Disney introduced the "new" Gadgetmobile - it doesn't look, function or think like the old Gadgetmobile at all, it's just the canonical "comic relief" figure. Disney obviously recognised that the Gadget cartoons were a comedy, so they made the film a comedy too, but they took out all the clever running gags (like the assignment paper exploding in the Chief's face) and replaced them with Gadget being a moron, the Gadgetmobile being a wise-ass, and "Claw" showing off. Someone should tell Disney that "children's movie" doesn't imply "total lack of any brain usage". Gadget should be targeted for children of 10-12 years... not children of 10-12 months like this movie. Whatever this movie is supposed to be, it is NOT, repeat NOT, the real Inspector Gadget. Because I love the old Gadget, I hate this. | 0neg
|
I used to have a fascination with the cartoon back in college when it was being made. It had much the charm of "Get Smart". While it admittedly had its faults, it was rather enjoyable.<br /><br />Naturally I was very interested in seeing the film version. That was before I saw it. Afterwords I wished it had never been made.<br /><br />Besides being miscast all around (who on Earth though Broderick was even close to the role?) it just didn't make the grade.<br /><br />The effects were reasonable and perhaps the ONLY thing I liked about the movie; seeing a live-action version of the gadgets in action! What was missing was a story and treatment which made it funny or charming or interesting.<br /><br />The original was a wacky cartoon with a very lighthearted attitude. It was FUN. The motion picture became murky and took itself FAR too seriously. If it had seriously had a great plot or went crazy enough to make it seem like a "cartoon on film" it might have been enjoyable.<br /><br />As it exists it doesn't deserve to be considered part of the "Gadget Legacy". | 0neg
|
I grew up watching the old Inspector Gadget cartoon as a kid. It was like Get Smart for kids. Bumbling boob can't solve any case and all the work is done by the walking talking dog Brain and his niece Penny. I had heard the live action movie was decent so I checked it out at the library. I rented this movie for free and felt I should have been paid to see this.<br /><br />Broderick comes nowhere near the caliber of acting Don Adams had as the voice of gadget. His voice was all wrong. The girl who played Penny looked nothing like the cartoon Penny. She is brunette where the cartoon version was blonde with pigtails. But she does do a decent job given what she had to work with. Dabney Coleman gives a good performance as Cheif Quimby. Saldy he never hid in any odd place or had exploding messages tossed at him accidently by Gadget.<br /><br />The gadget mobile was wrong. It never talked in the series and it did fine. Why did they do this?<br /><br />Gadget was too intelligent in this film. In the show he was a complete idiot. Here he had a halfway decent intellect. It would have worked better if he was a moron.<br /><br />Also the completely butchered the catchphrase. Borderick says "Wowser". It is and should always be "Wowsers". It sounds lame with out the 's'. I got upset when they showed the previews and they didn't have the correct phrase.<br /><br />The ONLY decent gags were during the credits. The lacky for Claw is in front of a support group for recovering henchmen/sidekicks. Seated in the audience is Mr. T, Richard Keil aka Jaws of Bond movie fame, a Herve Villacheze look alike, Oddjob, Kato and more. This is about the only part I laughed at.<br /><br />The other is at the end where Penny is checking out here gadget watch and tells brain to say somethin. Don Adams voices the dog saying that "Brain isn't in right now. Please leave your name at the sound of the woof. Woof." of course this isn't laugh out loud funny, just a nice piece of nostalgia to hear Adams in the movie. He should have at least voiced the stupid car.<br /><br />Kids will like this, anyone over 13 won't.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
I was a huge fan of the original cartoon series, and was looking forward to finally seeing Gadget on the big screen -- but I never in my wildest dreams expected something so extremely extremely terrible. The pace was WAY too fast, there was no plot, and 'wowser!' - what the hell is that?? It was 'WOWSERS!!'. | 0neg
|
Well. Where to begin. Let's just say this; avoid this movie at all<br /><br />costs. It's based on a cartoon series. The movie makes the cartoon look<br /><br />like Hamlet. Filled with emasculated actors who seem embarrassed to be<br /><br />here, lousy camera work, terrible music, and enough product placement to<br /><br />make you want to never visit Yahoo! again, this movie is really the<br /><br />bottom of the barrel. To quote the New Yorker, Matthew Broderick and<br /><br />Rupert Everett mug their way through this picture with the gay abandon<br /><br />of men who have spotted a rare species of paycheck in the distance."<br /><br />They should pay us some of the millions they earned for watching it.<br /><br />Awful. | 0neg
|
If you enjoy seeing what must have started as a 2 hour movie in unconnected bursts of unwatchability, you'll love this film. Otherwise, you'll just wonder how they could have made such a film from something so simple to translate to the big screen as Inspector Gadget.<br /><br />In the previews for the film, many scenes were shown which were not in the film, and within the film, some scenes just don't make sense. While the movie is slightly less than 1 hour and a half, I can only think of one truly memorable moment, and that is just before or during the credits!<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
This is one of those movies you think that the makers would refuse to release it because it is so terrible. Obviously they were thinking that children are stupid and are excellent for absorbing endless ads and would think they are entertainment because it is slapstick funny. What is it with the talking car with buttons that say Wendy's, McDonalds, M&M's and Skittles? There was no talking car in the cartoon. (Dr.) Claw is supposed to be evil, not handsome and charming. Why is Rupert Everet 'Claw' anyway? Were the writers on drugs when they wrote these scenes? It looks like they were (badly) lampooning Robo Cop, with the turning a man into a crime fighting android thing. I tried to get my money back but there was a policy where if I watch more than 30 minutes of a movie, you don't get a refund. I'm sorry I watched more than 30 minutes of that pile of crap. After I was told the no-refund policy, I decided to watch the rest of the hideous garbage called Inspector Gadget. | 0neg
|
I'm not quite sure why, but this movie just doesn't play the way it should. It should be humerous and fun, but instead is just boring. I think a large part of it is because they way over played the "gadgets." The old cartoon it is based on is much better.<br /><br />3/10 | 0neg
|
Since I had loved the Inspector Gadget cartoon in the 80's, I went to see this movie. I wasted my money. The plot was very thin. Also, the movie could not keep me interested for long. I was glad it was over.<br /><br />If you want to see Inspector Gadget, watch the cartoon instead. It was much better than the movie. | 0neg
|
Luckily I did not pay to see this movie. Also, I cannot even reveal any spoilers because I willingly WALKED OUT after forty minutes of the movie. It was that bad. I laughed once, when the Yahoo! billboard fell on the guy, and the theme song came on. However, that was only because I thought it was making fun of it, but then I realized it was yet ANOTHER product placement. <br /><br />I loved the cartoon. I used to watch it almost religiously. (although i missed the last episode. I heard that they show Dr. Claw and it was nothing more than a Claw, somebody comment on the show's page) The cartoon had Penny and Brain alot more than the movie had, as to that point. I hated the setup of the whole thing, reminiscent of Robocop. Then Broderick screws with the whole feeling of Inspector Gadget. He is not nearly as clumsy as the cartoon was. Another fact is his gadgets actually work to the point I saw, except for the oil slick. He also screwed with the tone of "Wowsers" which used to be in an excited tone. I felt so disappointed that they slaughtered the cartoon so badly. Everybody else felt that way too. Us 14-17 year olds remember the cartoon fondly and we loved every minute of it.<br /><br />I went into the movie with an open mind, knowing that they would have screwed with the cartoon. I was taken aback at how retarded the movie was. It relied on sight gags, and stupid dialogue for humor. Disney relies on pain and physical humor to push a kids movie along. Product placement is pointless in this film, and it shows. The wise-cracking car is not that good at cracking wise. The gadgets look nice, but they were almost overly glossy. The cartoon was a better look. The silly scenes were crap. In the 40-45 minutes I watched the movie, not one laugh was heard, and they laughed at the Dudley-Do-Right preview. This movie should not be watched by people who want intelligence in their family entertainment. I highly recommend "The Iron Giant," which was sad, but very very good. This movie is a travesty to the whole family drama.------------1 | 0neg
|
I really wanted to like this movie - the location shots were mostly filmed in Pittsburgh and the trailer had some wonderful photography. But, even for a filmed cartoon, it was a really badly-made movie. The continuity and pacing were both simply awful. The best bits in the movie are under the ending credits, so it's (almost) worth sticking it out to the end (though, oddly, it does pick up a little over the last half hour or so).<br /><br />When the best performance in a movie is by Andy Dick, you know there's got to be a problem... | 0neg
|
Why?!! This was an insipid, uninspired and embarrassing film. The embarrassment comes from being from the city where they made it...Pittsburgh PA! Why did they let these people do such a BAAAAAD movie there?<br /><br />When this movie was originally to be released...it was more of a romantic comedy...and no ROBO-anything. That all got changed along with cuteness courtesy of Disney. WHY???? They did a terrible interpretation of this classic comic character. Seeing Matthew Broderick make fun of his own movies was not fun either. Sheesh!! | 0neg
|
After Disney's witty live-action George of the Jungle, I had high hopes for this flick. Major disappointment. Thread bare plot, bad acting, bad visual effects. This film relied on lame one-liners, idiotic ( and pointless) product placement, and the lamest most annoying side-kick in that gadget car thing. I took two young kids to see it and they where bored out of their mind. The only laugh received from this movie was bad standby of when needing a laugh show a guy getting it in the groin! | 0neg
|
OK. I think the TV show is kind of cute and it always has some kind of lesson involved. So, when my kids decided they wanted to see this movie, I decided to tag along. I wish I'd stayed home and watched the TV show instead.<br /><br />The fact that the humor is silly and unoriginal is the least of the problems with this movie. The plot is next to non-existant, the characters seem to exist in a vacuum, and, worst of all, Gadget does not carry any lesson whatsoever. It appears that Disney took all of the things that make Inspector Gadget work on TV and tossed them all. To be fair, my younger child (8 years old) liked the movie but the older one (10 years old) came away thinking it silly (he was too old for the youth humor but too young for any of the adult humor).<br /><br />Generally, I like Disney films but this one misses by a mile. It is OK for a very narrow age band (say 7 to 9) but a must miss for everybody else. | 0neg
|
INSPECTOR GADGET (1999) **<br /><br />Starring: Matthew Broderick, Rupert Everett, Joely Fisher, Andy Dick, Dabney Coleman Director: David Kellogg 80 minutes Rated PG<br /><br />By Blake French:<br /><br />Disney's new film, "Inspector Gadget" is about a cop named John who survives a major accident and is saved by a state of the art experimental operation that turns him into a robotic machine-like agent who has tools and contraptions of all sorts built into his body at his use when he says "Go Go," only to be called Inspector Gadget!<br /><br />The actual movie's structure is much like the body formation of Inspector Gadget himself. It is noisy, fragmented, energetic and consist of a bunch of half hearted contraptions thrown together to make something that doesn't have much in common with anything else present. The film is basically a series of zany action sequences that are kind of pasted together with characters and an uneven story that only kids between the ages of 6-9 would enjoy.<br /><br />The cop who is dramatically reinvented is played by Matthew Broderick, who, until "Inspector Gadget," was on a success spree with movies like "Election." His character becomes Inspector Gadget after an encounter with the film's heavy handed villain named Claw. He is played by Rupert Everett, who has already experienced catastrophe this year with the dreadful "William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Nights Dream."<br /><br />There is a romantic subplot in this movie as well as ample amounts of scenes involving Inspector Gadget's wacky body parts and mechanism elements. It has Gadget and Claw drooling over the attractive character Brenda, played by Joely Fisher, for both her looks and her knowledge of a specific invention made by her late father, who was earlier killed by Claw. Competition evolves into fight scenes and a reason for many happenings in the film. Also a major character is the Gadget Mobil, a life like automobile that is devised for Inspector Gadget himself. It is voiced by D.L. Hughly from the sitcom comedy "The Hughly's."<br /><br />"Inspector Gadget" is a movie that I found quite bad. I know, I am not exactly a target audience of the filmmakers, but even my ten year old relative found the film to his disliking. The movie is full of distinct flaws and obvious problems. I never found myself caring about the characters. There is no mood development beyond some neat opening credits, unlike the much worse 1997 film, "Mr. Magoo," which opened using clips of the original cartoon. Is it too much to ask for that same type of thing in this comedy-which is seldom funny and hardly ever convincing. The overall production design is nothing but a mess of incomplete sight gags and consists of one joke: Inspector Gadget's bumbling goofiness.<br /><br />In movies like this the audience lusts for boundaries-something to help make out what can happen and what can not. In "Inspector Gadget" there are no such boundaries. This is truthfully nothing more than a party time for the actors, who surly had lots of fun. I am reminded of another lacking comedy released a few years ago called "Blankman" which again, contained lots of props and energy, and the actors certainly had fun time with all the gizmos and props, but it too lacked something needed for every movie: audience participation.<br /><br />A character that I found being left out a lot is Gadgets daughter, who by the end of the movie, I still has not clue of what her name was. She is used only as a plot device-and I question how she was used to further the plot as well. For her presence brings nothing relevant or productive to the film. We never know her reactions to her father's operation or accidents. Thus, this is someone who could have been completely left out and would have not affected the movie a bit.<br /><br />In closing, I'd like to state that "Inspector Gadget" is an awful, insufficient excuse for a children's comedy. And believe it or not, I find myself comparing this film to last years violent and very anti-young audience action picture "Blade." I am stating once again that I had much rather have a movie where nothing happens than one in which everything happens. "Inspector Gadget" had so much going for it at the same time, it made literally made me dizzy.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
Disney's done it again. The company that made "Mr. Magoo" and "George of the Jungle" has made another movie that barely resembles the cartoon on which it is based, and keeps none of the spirit of the original.<br /><br />"Inspector Gadget" was one of my favorite cartoons when I was a young one, and for a movie of it to exist may have been a dream come true back then. Now that that movie does exist, I was severely disappointed, even outraged.<br /><br />First we have the characters.<br /><br />Gadget himself has the gadgets that made him such a fun character in the original cartoon (with well-done special effects accompanying them), and he even has some of the naivete of the original Gadget, but he is now more competent and is expected to solve the crime himself while Penny and Brain just watch.<br /><br />Penny has little to do; while she played a major role in the cartoon, discovering the crime and halting it, and occasionally getting captured by the MAD agents, now she is simply introduced and then forgotten, although she does at least sneak into Claw's base.<br /><br />Claw is the movie's version of Dr. Claw, who was a rather sinister, raspy-voiced man who wore metallic gloves and sat in his chair, his face hidden from view, as he stroked his cat and oversaw various crimes. Now he is simply a man with a claw for a hand, with no mystery behind the character.<br /><br />Brain and Mad Cat exist in the movie, but are rather insignificant to it.<br /><br />Even small parts of the cartoon aren't spared in this butchering. The famous expression "Wowsers!" was mysteriously changed to "Wowser", and Gadget's Gadgetmobile now looks different and talks.<br /><br />There is even product endorsements everywhere. Why is "Yahoo!" advertised on a sign? Why does the Gadgetmobile have buttons for M&M's or Skittles?<br /><br />Fans of the cartoon will hate it, others might will likely find the movie below par, and when all is said and done, this movie is another attempt to make some quick bucks off another old show. | 0neg
|
In keeping with Disney's well-known practice of stealing.. I mean.. buying out known properties and bastardizing them, this live-action version of the venerable cartoon classic has got to be one of the worst re-makes in a year of bad re-makes. I grew up on the original cartoon TV series. Any episode of the original cartoon series will give you more laughs than this entire movie. Not present is Penny's cool computer book. Also not present is the gag with the self-destructing orders that always ends up detonating on the Chief. New are a smooth talking Gadget convertible (the original cartoon had a cooler vehicle that could turn into a van or a car) and an element of a typical, unrealistic Hollywood romance. Don't fill the coffers to pay for Disney executives and even their _ex_executives - don't see this movie.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
I had absolutely nothing to do the past weekend, and tagged along with my friends to check out a movie...any movie. And since the only movie we'd not seen was Inspector Gadget, we decided to go in for that.<br /><br />BIG MISTAKE. This is a movie that might appeal only to kids. Oh, and it's not like I don't enjoy movies targeted at the younger audience. But this movie had absolutely nothing to hold my attention. If you have nothing to do at home, go to sleep. Better than wasting hard-earned cash on this. Go check out the film if you're a kid or if you're a parent with a kid :) | 0neg
|
5 minutes into this movie I was hyperventilating, shaking, and writhing in pain. And not in the good way. The story is about a troupe of idiotic children making prank phone calls to a psycho which is always a good idea. Turns out psychos don't like prank phone calls because in 2 minutes time he's at their door killing poor Williams mom and dad. Well skip ahead 15 years and guess what? Still prank phone calling people. Yep you would of thought that a horrible murder would of deterred them from doing that ever again but no. So after about two hours later and way too many scream ripoffs I realized that this movie gave me nothing but a terrible taste in my mouth and a severe urge to take my own life. This piece of crap isn't even worth laughing at the shoddy production, the "acting", or Rutger haurs dwindling career. I love crappy horror movies but this is the most unsatisfying piece I've ever seen. Just don't. | 0neg
|
Saw it yesterday night at the Midnight Slam of the Festival des films du Monde in Montreal. What a disappointment. This movie is clearly over rated by IMDb fans. The acting was only but regular. The directing didn't bring anything new or interesting. The plot lacks considerably : the movie is all about those college grads and the game they play making prank calls(7eventy 5ive). And on top of that, you can predict the movie's end in the first five minutes. If you like prank calls and a slasher with an axe that makes you jump only once or twice during the whole movie, you might like it. If you don't, this movie is not worth it. | 0neg
|
The plot of 7EVENTY 5IVE involves college kids who play a cruel phone game that unexpectedly (to them, if not to fans of horror) gets them in over their heads. The STORY of 7EVENTY 5IVE, on the other hand, is that of a horror film that had a wee little bit of promise, sadly outweighed by really bad writing.<br /><br />What could have been a fun, if somewhat silly, old-fashioned slasher tale is derailed early on by its filmmakers' misguided belief that the audience would enjoy watching a bunch of loud, whiny rich kids bitching at each other for most of the film's running time. With the exception of a police detective played by Rutger Hauer, (in a minor role that is designed mainly to add the movie's only star power) every character on screen is a different breed of young A-hole.<br /><br />Male and female, black and white, straight and gay, an entire ensemble of shallow and shrill college kids carries the bulk of the film's narrative. Worse, since the tale deals with a PARTY game gone awry, most of the time the scenes are completely filled with these little b*****ds. Because of this, there are few breaks for the viewer, who must put up with the angry sniping of the thinly-drawn protagonists. Even though at least some of these people are supposedly friends, invariably all characters interact in a very hostile manner, long before any genuine conflict has actually arisen. This leads to the worst possible result in a slasher film: The audience, intended to care about the leads, instead not only cheers on the anonymous killer, but wishes that he had arrived to start picking off the vacuous brats far earlier.<br /><br />The real shame of this poor characterization is that otherwise 7EVENTY 5IVE actually DID have some potential. Visually it's fine. First-time directors Brian Hooks and Deon Taylor know how to build a suspenseful mood. They also manage to deliver on some competent, if sparse, moments of classic 80s-style gore. Surprisingly, the production's cast is also fairly able. It isn't that the actors aren't capable of expressing realistic human emotion; it is simply that the screenplay (co-written by newcomer Vashon Nutt and director Hooks, who fared much better behind the camera than with a keyboard) is short of such moments.<br /><br />7EVENTY 5IVE can hardly be recommended, as its familiar premise and few thrills can't outweigh the bad taste left behind by a story driven by a gaggle of unpleasant characters. In this tepid whodunnit, the real mystery is why anyone should care about a group of young folk who can't even manage to like each other. | 0neg
|
What an utter disappointment! The score of 6,1 here on IMDb built up some mild expectations but, oh my, was I disappointed. The first thing that bugs me are those braindead, stereotyped university kids. Yes, I know teens can be childish and so on, but why are they in movies always portrayed as complete braindead morons? There was one character that I thought was alright, but he/she (not revealing it here) was killed off way before the end. The other characters was poorly executed and even the supposed hero/heroine just didn't do it for me. On the plus side: The plot is pretty good and the productions values a cut above for these kind of flicks. The acting was generally not very good, Rutger Hauer stands out in a small role. But it all fails with bland and braindead characters. You just stop caring about them after 10 minutes. 4/10 (and thats being generous). | 0neg
|
When I caught a glimpse of the title I thought are we going to get another try-hard hip slasher, but actually I found "7eventy 5ive" to be a mildly passable, and almost 80s throwback after a tediously slow mid-section it picks up momentum for the final half-hour leading to it's outrageously tacky climax and downright cop out ending. It won't win awards for originality, because it's as systematic as you can get and steals its thunder in the way of thrills (usual cheap jump scares), location (secluded mansion) and motivation from other films. The gleaming direction is by-the-book and the material is quite hackneyed with poorly realised red herrings within its elaborate plotting and flimsy script. Sometimes laughable, but nonetheless I was entertained mainly due to its brutal and grisly acts of pulpy violence towards some rather obnoxiously annoying college students by a psychotic killer with a battle axe. The performances weren't bad in the shape of a spunky young cast, however the characters they were portraying weren't particularly enticing. An always presentable Rutger Hauer shows up in a short supportive role as a grizzled detective. A slickly made, but a shallow and forgettable addition to the fold. | 0neg
|
Here we go with other slasher movie, Good looking people and Acting from everyone was really good!<br /><br />Few kids playing pranks phones calls and there parents are killed by the killer in front of the kids! 20 Years after they are still friends, They go to huge house, have fun, Drugs and Sex (no nudity) for least half a hour of the movie! Again they start making pranks phone call all over again! and then killer comes back kills them off one by one and killer is in BIG BLACK COAT with axe just like Urban Legend movie,<br /><br />Deaths scene really weird, really odd times too.<br /><br />Nice slasher movie at this part would gave 7/10 but the twist at the end of the movie made the whole movie kinda of pointless<br /><br />The twist killed the movie for me so I going to give it 4/10 | 0neg
|
I'm sorry to all the fans, but this is a useless movie. The acting is bad, even wooden, it over-hypes the fright-factor early on, and doesn't exactly work. I think there was supposed to be a twist at the end, but it just ended up being maddeningly confusing. What the hell? The dude who was killing everyone was one of the hunted? Try again.<br /><br />Its hardly original, and it isn't even particularly good as a straight slasher. And that's saying something.<br /><br />I think whoever did the castings, whoever wrote the script, and whoever thought of the concept should be mercilessly fired and deported.<br /><br />Don't watch this movie. If someone puts this on at a party, throw the disc out the window and put on a good horror movie, like Silence of the Lambs or The Shining. | 0neg
|
I was attracted to seeing this movie because of this plot and my desire to watch a horror.<br /><br />To my disappointment, this turned into more of a comedy than a horror. The acting, dialog, and flow of the movie was all very poorly done. Much of it didn't make sense. For example, there's a party of about 30 people and they're all terrified of one person despite them being at a secret location and are all healthy looking young adults and the guy threatening them sounds haggard. I kept thinking, maybe this was a parody of another movie like Scary Movie, but they were trying too hard to make it look gruesome - emphasis on try.<br /><br />The blood and gore are also poorly done. I've seen Halloween costumes look more believable than this. A guy with his head cut clean off... looked clean - missing signs bone, flesh, blood, and even the head. A strong downward strike with an ax on a corpse should lodge itself into something... seemed like the guy was swinging a bat instead of an ax.<br /><br />Revealing who the main villain was supposed to be a twist, but contradicted other parts in the story. What was going in the guy's mind to turn out like that? If there was going to be a twist, you should at least build up to it adding mystery and suspense. | 0neg
|
This wasn't really a very good movie. There were lots of implausible and predictable things that happened during the course of the film...but I think that most of the reviewers are missing the point of why this movie should be enjoyed by a wide audience. THIS MOVIE WAS PRODUCED BY MAGIC JOHNSON! Isn't that enough to inspire us all to check out this film? A film produced by a former NBA star doesn't come along every day, you know. Beautifully stupid kids in a big house getting slashed by an axe wielding psycho. Every cliché trotted out for us to groan over. Teen sex. And it was all produced by MAGIC JOHNSON! I can't say enough about this movie! Teen drug use! College hijinx! And it was all produced by MAGIC JOHNSON! Yippeeee! | 0neg
|
This is the worst adaption of a classic story I have ever seen. They needlessly modernize it and some points are actually just sick.<br /><br />The songs rarely move along the story. They seem to be thrown in at random. The flying scene with Marley is pointless and ludicrous.<br /><br />It's not only one of the worst movies I've seen, but it is definitely the worst musical I've ever seen.<br /><br />It's probably only considered a classic because "A Christmas Carol" is such a classic story. Just because the original story was a classic doesn't mean that some cheap adaption is. | 0neg
|
I couldn't not recommend a Christmas movie more than this worthless piece of drivel (trust me, double negatives are required here -- it's that bad). This film was in trouble from the opening credits when it was revealed that the screenwriter was the same person as the songwriter. The musical numbers are all far too long and none of them any good ("Thank You Very Much" has a decent melody, but the lyrics are stupid beyond words). I would gladly bear the chains worn by Scrooge in the film's bizarre hell sequence than sit through this insult to movie musicals again.<br /><br />The only entertaining part of this movie (completely unintentional by the way) involves Alec Guinness as Jacob Marley. Dressed in a silly powder white costume, Guinness foppishly prances through his scenes in what was either an attempt to make it appear as though he was floating like a ghost, or to show his utter disdain with having to be in this dreadful movie. Albert Finney, meanwhile, blends the best of Alistar Sim and Charles Laughton to create his hopelessly loathsome character of Quasimodo/Scrooge. Finney's Scrooge is so hideous a person, it's impossible to believe his transformation.<br /><br />Steer clear of this abomination of filmmaking at all costs. | 0neg
|
now don't get me wrong, i do enjoy christmas movies. i love its a wonderful life and i really enjoy the versions of a christmas carol with george c. scott and alistair sim. but this particular movie is awful. i think the i love life song the ghost of christmas present sings is especially painful. albert finney sings fairly well in annie. i don't know whats wrong with him in this movie but it sounds as though someone is trying to sing through a mouthful of dead gerbils. the only thing that saved this movie for us was shutting the sound off and watching the dance numbers accompanied by the south park christmas cd. | 0neg
|
This is a bigger budgeted film than usual for genre director Honda (with more evidently elaborate sets) though the special effects still have that distinctive cheesiness to them (witness the giant bats and rodents on display). It also utilizes a surprising number of American actors: Joseph Cotten playing the visionary scientist looks ill-at-ease and frail (but, then, his character is supposed to be 204 years old!), an innocuous Richard Jaeckel is the photographer hero while, as chief villains, we get Cesar Romero and Patricia Medina (both essentially campy). As I've often said, I grew up watching English-language films dubbed in Italian
but hearing Hollywood actors in Japanese is another thing entirely! <br /><br />LATITUDE ZERO feels like a juvenile version of a typical Jules Verne adventure, and is fairly entertaining on that level; indeed, it's preferable to Honda's low-brow variations on the monsters-on-the-rampage formula because of the inherent quaint charm of the set-up in this case. The plot involves the kidnapping of a famous scientist by Romero he was intended to establish himself in the underwater, technologically advanced city devised by Cotten (to which the world's foremost minds are being recruited). We're treated to plenty of silly battles between the rival subs, but the most amusing scenes are certainly the raid on Romero's cave in fact, Cotten doing somersaults and fending off men in rubber suits (via flames and laser emitted from his glove!) must surely count as the nadir of his acting career; the other elder in the cast, Romero, is more in his element after all, he had been The Joker in the BATMAN TV series and movie of the 1960s! Cotten has a scantily-clad blonde physician on his team, and is assisted by a hulking Asian; Romero, on the other hand, is flanked by an Oriental femme fatale who, however, ends up getting a raw deal for her efforts (the girl's brain is eventually transplanted into a hybrid of lion and condor
which is among the phoniest-looking creatures you ever saw!). Apparently, a 2-disc set of this one from Media Blasters streets on this very day!! | 0neg
|
No matter how well meaning his "message" is - this film is a terribly made trainwreck - awful acting, lame camera work - I do not know why Carr agreed to try and pull off a stutter - he is lousy at it. You watch the extras on the DVD and the way he has a camera follow him around - he just soaks it up - he loves being the center of attention. He is a bad actor - he reminds me of another arrogant filmmaker - Eric Schaffer. Some how Carr has had this film shown at city Youth Centers and New Age churches - where damaged people looking for reinforcement and attention themselves babble on about how the film touched them and maybe it did - but as a film itself it is choppy, predictable and sappy. | 0neg
|
Overrated and only for those people in their 20's whom wear particularly thick rose tinted glasses, who never actually saw it in the first place because they were to young. Awful animation, dialogue and a tired narrative. A real product of the 80's, the novel gimmick of a puzzle TOY (thats right, TOY not the absurd, pretentious and child alienating "collectors action figurine"), sold on the back of a poor cartoon and other paraphernalia, only matters to those who bought the TOY when they were "actual" children in the period of '84' to '87'. It Has become cult because of those same adults are to immature to let go of their memories. Avoid. | 0neg
|
Being that I loved the original "Caligula" even with all its flaws, I have to say this remake trailer was abysmal.<br /><br />Listening to Jovovich say in that lazy American accent "Mmm cuhligyooluh..." makes me feel sick. The set doesn't look Roman at all... it looks like some rich actor's Hollywood mansion backyard, and the Roman costumes look like cheap crap you buy at a suburban costume shop.<br /><br />That "charming" Adriana Asti looks like a fifty year old Hispanic woman totally terrified out of her mind, as if not knowing it's a movie trailer.<br /><br />The acting has got to be some of the worst I've ever seen, with most of the lines I hear being random actors screaming "CALIGULAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!" as loudly and obnoxiously annoyingly as they can.<br /><br />The random sex scenes also filled a good 40 or 50% of the trailer, and the scenes with notable actors/actresses like Gerard Butler (who graces the screen in shadows for all of three and a half seconds) not doing anything but looking uncomfortable or going all-out over the top with their minimal lines, just dragging it down with the ridiculousness of their delivery.<br /><br />Courtney Love's part consists of her looking like her usual dumpy crack-whore self leaning against a door mumbling about the moon or something. You can't tell because she's either drunk or high or just mumbling idiotically.<br /><br />Karen Black is just annoying... randomly laughing, and screaming in such a way that irritates you.<br /><br />Helen Mirren... she was in the original, and her return to "Caligula" consists of... "CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALIGULAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I particularly "love" (and by love, I mean hate) Ennia's line, "Caligola... j00 no maki me *something incoherent*.... *something that sounds like j00nalo*" It's also insanely arrogant to say Caligula's four year reign was greater than Jesus's birth and death.<br /><br />Honestly, this has got to be the worst, most exploitative, self-indulgently arrogant piece of crap labeled as "art" I've ever seen. Even if Gore Vidal hated the original Caligula, he shouldn't have shown up or given his name over for this crap-pile, no matter how much they paid him (unless it was a billion trillion yen). Worst trailer ever. | 0neg
|
I have nothing more to say but it was awful. I cannot imagine why Helen Mirren and others were part of this degrading mess. And if certain actors don't want people to question their sexuality then perhaps they should refrain from making more of these films. There was at least one seen that left me curious. Just my opinion. SHUDDER to think what was going on that was cut from the film. SHUDDER to wonder what went through the minds of the actors who made this film. Shudder to think about the thought process and voyeurism that went on in the directors mind. Like I stated before its a degrading mess. Its not even funny. As Ebert said of the film Caligula with Malcolm McDowell, Its not a good film, not a good story and its not even good porn. YEESHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH............ | 0neg
|
This may have been based on historical events, and we know that the makers of this TV docu-drama took liberties to make it more dramatic - I can live with that - but it was just so badly done! I was amazed in the event of an unfolding mid-air crisis how calm everyone seemed, surely someone would have panicked, and what a smooth flight, no passenger discomfort apparent - come on! Not sure about the regulations, nowadays some of the airline security stuff seems OTT nonsense, but why take your shoes off before the emergency landing, common sense tells me this is not a good idea! The shots of this massive airliner coming down on this remote airstrip were unconvincing and fake. In reality it would have been an awesome sight viewed from the ground nearby, in this movie it was out of proportion and looked like the model it probably was. Escape slides appeared at the front and mid emergency doors, yet nobody appeared to exit from the front, even though the drop was much less. The Captain went back into the plane after the landing - why? this was never explained. We know the emergency landing was due to being out of fuel, but even so there must have been some fuel sloshing around at the bottom of the tanks, and the risk of explosion must have been a very real danger, yet the evacuation seemed almost leisurely, and everyone stands around at the foot of the escape slides instead of getting as far away as possible, as I am sure I would have done. There were just too many inconsistencies, errors and faked action in this. I would have preferred to have seen a representation of the drama in real time, and with realistic motion of the plane portrayed. It had the potential to be quite thrilling, but doubtless due to the budget restrictions failed, and made one feel that a plane losing all engines was no big deal really, and you would safely glide down to a bit of a bumpy landing, but no real danger! - the reality of course being somewhat different! | 0neg
|
I wanted to read the other comments before leaving my review and the majority definately rules: This movie is aweful! From the acting to the non-realistic animation to the countless errors. I was actually hoping that the flaps would have been extended by a stretch of the imagination (can't extend flaps without engines). The landing gear cannot be lowered unless you have electricity. That tiny little fan that was going was not sufficient by any stretch to lower the landing gear. The one thing I thought was quite peculiar is when they landed, the back wheels touched down and then the nose one broke off, thus suspending the plane with both back tires in the air. How did the captain apply left and right brakes to tires that weren't touching the ground? Did they forget the spoilers? Word to the director: Find out *all* you can about planes before attempting a "plane" movie. Sorry for the technical rant, but I give this movie 1/10. | 0neg
|
I HATE plane crash movies...ALL of them! In fact, I hate them all with a passion! First of all, they are cheap-looking and have no craftsmanship! Secondly, they insult the airline industry and say to the audience that all planes do is...FALL OUT OF THE SKY AND CRASH!<br /><br />Why I wince at such a film? This could happen to any of us and with worser consequences than those suffered by the characters in said movie...which is the only chilling aspect of an airline disaster yarn such as this. I hate this movie because it's like all the 50,000,000 stupid-ass airplane chaos movies before it! Freefall is like all the others: nothing more than boredom before the clichéd bullshit dramatic scenes take place. <br /><br />First, off we have same cast of retards on this flying death trap: The Cleaver-esquire family of three, the yuppie baastard, and the bitch of a flight attendant complete with a big blond hairdo from 1987 scolding anyone who is the least bit frightened! <br /><br />My second gripe is this shouldn't be a full-length movie, but a documentary explaining everything about the Air Canada "Gimbli Glider" incident a.k.a "Freefall" right down to the safety precautions.<br /><br />My third and final gripe is with all airline films of this caliber(with the exception of Fearless) Why the hell did the male steward instruct the passengers to remove there shoes? (I could understand high heels and sharp, loose objects, but c'mon!)Like that's gonna' make them any more f#*king safer than they are now! This plane if they(the passengers) didn't know any better: knew they were going to crash land. Why would you force 100 injured people down a rubber slide that can cause skin to peel and bleed on impact only to walk in their stocking feet on a debris field! Does this make any sense to anyone?<br /><br />Fearless and the hit ABC series "Lost" had more depth and realism to air disaster than just "plane malfunctions-people panic-stewards become assholes-plane lands without wheels in a field-people wander without shoes and jackets, etc. The same old crap from Airport 1975! Freefall was so typical of a air-crash movie that I almost expect to see either Charlton Heston or Peter Graves burst into the damn passenger cabin at any moment. Could we at least see how these poorly-acted characters go back to normalcy instead of people rejoicing amidst the impending tragedy that is staring in front of them? Typical moronic Lifetime movie! Cheap and Stupid! <br /><br />The director of "Freefall" should stick to cheap made-for-TV movies with white middle-aged women with stupid teenage kids who do drugs and have marital problems. As for suspense...leave it to the professionals...you hack! Why should we the audience sit through over an hour and a half of this Airport wannabe rehash. I hope to god they don't make plane crash movies like this anymore. If this were like the ABC series "Lost" then it would be something to watch. But this is utter crap and then some. Stop turning every plane disaster movie into "Airport 1975"! This is not "Airport" this is cheap pathetic waste of my time. I would not recommend this movie or any made-for-TV air disaster movie to anyone not even my worst enemies. | 0neg
|
A good cast and they do their best with what they're given, but the story makes no sense, the characters' actions are inexplicable, and there are too many moments of unintentional humor, as when a man is killed by being pierced with pieces of a phonograph record or when they get the witch drunk to a hip hop beat and then hit her over the head with a bottle and she grabs her hostage and pouts off. The scene when the two witch and her victim (played by the same actress) are in the house together sets up like a 3 Stooges routine, and the plot begs the question: if the witch wants to possess this other woman's soul, why doesn't she just do it instead of leading these people on this elaborate chase? Not to be missed is Christopher Walkin's eyeglasses and his automotive explanation of the afterlife (paraphrased): "The ancient Egyptianas - they wee materialists. They expected the body to last through eternity, like a used car that you souped up. But the Druids, they knew you couldn't drive in the afterlife. You had to get out and walk." Huh? The ending is absolutely indecipherable. Seems like they just ran out of film. | 0neg
|
This film seems to be completely pointless. There is no reason why anything that happens in it happens, as if it was written by a small child who got bored halfway through and thought "how can I wrap this up?". And what were Jared Harris and Christopher Walken thinking? Did they do it for a bet? I couldn't tell you the plot, I'm not entirely sure there is one to be quite frank, but if there is it didn't register. Jared and his bird go to Ireland after she falls down the stairs while lashed up, as you do. They go to a house with a very annoying small girl in it, meet Christopher Walken who has dug up some ancient woman preserved in peat. He brings her back to life for no other reason than it continues the story and she shows her gratitude by immediately icing him. From then on it all gets a bit silly. A couple of hours of my life that I'd like back! | 0neg
|
Yikes did this movie blow. The characters were weak, the plot weaker. I figured this couldn't be too bad because it has Christoper Walken, oops. He must have done this because he was bored and needed the money. The characters were supposed to be Irish but noone had an Irish accent. I am desperately trying to find something nice about this, I can't except Walken did a fine job with a wooden character. Find something to read, or watch discovery, don't ever see this movie. | 0neg
|
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. However, the little slave girl, Alice and Jared Harris imitating Christopher Walken is what makes this movie entertaining. Alice's smoking, drinking and uncanny way of showing up when her name is called is strange and interesting. I have to applaud Jared for his Christopher Walken imitation, and Christopher Walken for allowing this to be in the movie. | 0neg
|
The writer came up with a pretty decent idea for a story, but many flaws in the execution of the plot took so much away from the film as to nearly render it unwatchable. Basic elements such as character development were glossed over, at best. Inconsistencies also reared their ugly heads. A massive mansion in the middle of the rural Irish countryside? Characters just "showing up" in the gardens during a stormy night (at very convenient times, I might add)? All in all it wasn't "bad". I rated it a 4, based mostly on the story and talent of Alison Elliott. | 0neg
|
There's really not a lot to say about Las Vegas Lady. It's harmless enough, but it is little more than a dull heist film from the 70s. The movie is neither as clever nor as sexy as it strives to be. The plot is a retread of the tired old casino robbery storyline that's been done to death. Except in the case of Las Vegas Lady, I think the robbery plot was designed by a 3 year-old. The plan involves three women one to unnecessarily and in plain view scale the outside of the Circus Cicus building, one to pose as a waitress only to blow her cover at the first opportunity, and one to stand around exposing her cleavage. That's pretty much it. Intricate, huh? Other than Stella Stevens and her aforementioned breasts, the other women involved in the plot aren't particularly memorable. Las Vegas Lady co-stars Stuart Whitman. When not pawing Stevens, his involvement in the movie is highlighted by one of the most idiotic gun fights ever put on film.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this movie. It does have that 70s feel to it that I always enjoy and some nice shots of Las Vegas circa 1975. But the movie itself is too dull to rate any higher than a 4/10 and that's probably overstating it. In the end, Las Vegas Lady is a waste of some perfectly good cleavage. | 0neg
|
Well, i could nt get into the plot, but thats just me maybe. Listless camera-movements at times, nevertheless this movie has got a charming vintage quality.The acting is genuine at times and entertaining with the occasional chase sequence involving scantily clad ladies, which was nice. The climax is confused and disjointed, but still ...err riveting, thanx to Stella Stevens.<br /><br />The stunts are interesting, specially because of the 70's las vegas backdrop. There are a few jerky hand-held camera-movements at the end, which keep me guessing, for a while. But i don't think I ll b chasing the DVD, just yet. | 0neg
|
Watching beautiful women sneaking around, playing cops and robbers is one of the most delightful guilty pleasures the medium film lets me enjoy. So The House on Carroll Street was not entirely a waste of time, although the story is contrived and the screenplay uninspired and somewhat irritating.<br /><br />There are many allusions to different Hitchcock pictures, not least the choice of Kelly McGillis in the starring role. She is dressed up as Grace Kelly, and she is not far off the mark. Not at all. But her character is not convincing. The way she is introduced to the audience, she should be someone with political convictions and a purpose in life. After all the movie deals with a clearly defined time period, true events and a specific issue. But the story degenerates within the first minutes into a sorry run-off-the-mill crime story with unbelievable coincidences, high predictability and a set of two dimensional characters. This is all the more regrettable, as the performances of the actors are good, as are the photography and the set design.<br /><br />The finale in Central Station, New York is breath taking. It starts in the subterranean section and then moves up to the roof. The movie can be praised for its good use of architecture. | 0neg
|
a romance without feeling, a drama of issues without point (or drama).... This film is supposed to be all these and fails on each and every account, as if it isn't trying. Or as if the director/editor/scriptwriter team isn't really trying. The actors are able--they need better support.<br /><br />One element that doesn't fail is the score by George Delarue. Beautiful and moving. What a shame it's attached to this film. In a good film actors' words and movements and music synchronize and enhance the impact. This editor plastered on music with no regard for dialogue and movement. The love scene is particularly grating in this respect: an insult to the talents of the lead actors.<br /><br />There is another element in the film that works: location photography. Notably one moment in Grand Central Station. I'd guessed in advance what was going to happen; but how it was filmed in that setting was breathtaking.<br /><br />Some commentators on this board have pointed out that US assimilation of criminal Nazi scientists actually happened during these years of the MacCarthy scare. The moment the film seems to start looking seriously at American society, it switches into conventional romance; before any human feelings can move us, it's away on a (predictable) 'thriller' escapade.<br /><br />Just as the film insults the talents of the actors, it insults the issues it's pretends (and fails) to take up.<br /><br />You are warned. | 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.